Transcripts For MSNBCW Up W Chris Hayes 20120701

i don't know. peter welch, governor from vermont. in the news a little bit lately. heather mcgee, maria returning to the show, co-host of "need to know" on pbs and glenn greenwald former constitutional and civil rights litigator and author of "with liberty and justice for some." in a 5-4 ruling this week, the united states supreme court crushed montana's attempt to preserve its century old corrupt practices act which ban corporate contributions to parties and upholding the law earlier this year, montana supreme court chief justice mike mcgrath wrote "with the infusion of corporate money and in support of an opposition to targeted candidate, the candidate would be unevil to compete and montana citizens who for over 100 years made their modest election contributions meaningfully count but be shutout of the process." the u.s. supreme court rejected montana's claim that their history gave the state "unique and compelling interests in eliminating corporate influence on elections." justice briar wrote, "that nment expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so." not only will the court not reconsider, the citizens united ruling, but not abide states acting independently to prevent their state electoral processes to unlimited contributions from corporate donors." i just want to get your reaction to the court's actions here? >> it's bad, really bad. what essentially happens is when we had too much money in politics already, we made it constitutionally protected to have unlimited amounts of money. so, any corporation, which they haven't really been doing it that much, but these loopy billionaires out there and some self-conscious billionaire as who have been able to write the big, fat checks in these campaigns, just sometimes for willful reasons, but a lot of times for investment reasons. >> i think the first wave we're getting the accentric ones. right now it's the loopy and we'll get more of the strategic. >> here's the thing we haven't been talking about so much. we saw this unload in the republican presidential primary, which is quite expected. where this will make a difference is in the low-inco low-information races. an immense amount of money comes in the race in the lastç two, three, four weeks and people aren't paying attention, then those negative ads really work. i had a couple colleagues that were extremely and both of them were subject to late, super pac massive expenditures and went from winning their races a few years ago by like 83% to barely hanging on and these were popular, hard working on the ground people. the apprehension i have is that this will have a potential huge effect on congressional races. >> montana attorney general was on rachel's program this week talking about the decision and he made this point about local races where the state, where the dollar figures involved are even smaller. take a look. >> citizens united dealt with federal elections and the presidential election. it doesn't take a copper king to buy a $17,000 state legislature race. there is a whole lot of different offices. county assessor, a local judge, our judges at the state level are elected. it really can, just the amount of money and also the different offices that are up, you know, that can be elected, unlike the federal system. it can really impact all of it. >> the court in citizens united was more or less balancing to competing interest, right? the first amendment right to free speech and there's a line of cases beginning with vallejo that says money is speech for these çpurposes. and then minimizing the corruption or the appearance of corruption and the court's finding in citizens united is this first amendment interest trumped that interest partly because of essentially finding a fact that it did not, these c contributions did not. there is a small group of people on the left who defended the citizens united ruling, you were one of them. i am wonder if you're thinking, if you still feel that way and how you respond to how it's playing out post-decision. >> so many misconceptions swirling around citizens united, more so than any other issue. i don't think it's really accurate to say a small group of people on the left, voices on the left that have defended citizens united on first 3íçmi!1 amendment grounds including the authoritative defending the bill of rights, which is the aclu. >> not looking as the campaign finance -- >> on the first amendment and free speech, generally. as well as the only political official in the united states in the last two decades and corporate america who is elliio spitz spitzer. no corporate stooge wwho took t position. had so, there's a very substantial political free speech issue that comes from empowering the government to say that you are not permitted to engage in certain kinds of political speech surrounding an election. american liberalism has always been about opposing efforts to say that the g]vernment should be able to constrain free speech on the grounds and compelling interest that justify it. terrorism, communism, this whole history that a lot of people people on the american left have looked at and said, we don't want the government to the solution to what is unquestionably the greatest problem democracy faces and using the restrictions on free speech, as the solution. the other issue that i think is so important to note here is that, you know, peter talked about these loopy individuals, but if you look at what citizens united actually did, it didn't have anything to do with the ability of foster freeze or all those other gop suger daddies to fund elections. the ability of corporations and unions to spend money. >> out of general treasury. >> long before citizens united individuals could advocate elections. montana's law doesn't do anything about. citizens united. huge corruption before citizens united. >> i think people make this argument and i think if you're looking at what happened post citizen united, alter the norms. the decision has altered the norms of conduct. they do matter. there is a reason when you look at the charts of these sorts of guys. yes, sheldon addison could have done it before and the thing that has changed in the intervening years. the other important point and the bizarre thing about the way this election is being run, a major ruling citizen united and then another court ruling speech now which is essentially controlling this entire area of law right now. the constitution of super pacs comes from the speech uncertainty and a tremendous uncertainty about what the law does and does not allow you to do. >> i was talking to a political analyst in preparation for the show and they rolled it back and said, look, if you think about what happened with the obama election and the fact that that really democratized people giving money and suddenly the republicans were looking at this and say, oh, my god, wait a second. look at the amount of money he did basically with small democracy donations. we have to do something that will give us back some power and the power is going to be in the corporate giving. and that that's part of why this happened. i'm fascinated about the fact that while in montana a, you know it was 1907 when the raderal republicans in the state of montan gnaw, not on our state. you're not going to come in here and throw your money around, no. at this point, a century plus ahead and being rolled back again, it's fascinating. >> wall street backed the obama campaign in 2008 much more aggressive than they did the mccain campaign. received huge amounts of wall street money and corporate money and does not break down that cleanly. >> it does now. >> now it does. >> wasn't there an issue about the fact that suddenly with social media and with the web, you were able to donate in a way that wasn't possible before. >> there is also the fact, we should also mention, in the defense of the good faith of the folks on the court, which is naive on my part. there has been a bunch of ideological warriorsç in this fight in this respect, not just on first amendment grounds but just broadly as an ideological disposition. it created for republican party operatives to see what had happened. >> the issue of corruption, i think, has to be, we have to pave a little way at that. not so much about paying out a politician and the corruption of only t on only the interests that are paying off the funding. so, in like the montana situation, some of those legislatures were paid off, but, basically, turning the whole legislative process into a servant of the mining industry at the expense of everyone else. we'll talk about wall street, they'll be glad to support democrats who are willing to get rid. they're equal opportunity givers to folks who support their agenda. the vote corruption issue here is oftentimes mistaken in my view with personal corruption when it's about narrowing of what legislative issues. the biggest challenge in a legislature to get the issue you care about on the table for active and serious consideration. >> you know, lawrence has this great distinction between good soul corruption and bad soul corruption. he also makes this point, if you show up in congress on your first day and the two things you really care about are helping out mothers on welfare and regulating the telecom industry so as to benefit big cable, right? you're going to get a lot of support for that ladder. even if you care about them equally, you go to bed at night wanting to help mothers on welfare. suddenly you'l priorities over time as the checks come in be destroyed. >> this is this issue around free speech which i really don't understand. whose speech are we talking about? in that open marketplace, the mother on welfare, where is her speech? how powferal can her speech be on a $5 donation when you have a $5,000 donation a $5 million donation from a telecom ceo? >> i want to get your response to that and keep sorting through citizens united and bring in the governor of montana, right after this break. have our fridges cater our parties. and tell our ranges to whip up dinner. let's plug in to summer savings before they're gone... ...without wasting an ounce of energy with smart machines that turn housework into house play. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, save $600 on this maytag french door refrigerator, just $1,598. high schools in six states enrolled in the national math and science initiative... ...which helped students and teachers get better results in ap courses. together, they raised ap test scores 138%. just imagine our potential... ...if the other states joined them. let's raise our scores. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this. discussing the supreme court's ruling this week on montana's corrupt practices act which is a law in contributions in montana to what was and we'll hear one of the most corrupt states in the union and, glenn, you were defending the jurisprudence and the kind of free-speech body and heather made a point about this, this is the fundamental thing. when liberals think about speech, is money speech and, if it is, it doesn't seem to operate in the way we normally think of speech which is, everybody has a voice and everybody can speak and not everybody has money. when we come down to it and we'll deregulate this region i think categorically a little ambiguous we end up with welfare moms on one side. >> my issue with this is, that is a huge problem and it's the central issue, but, for me, you know, citizens united has taken on this biblical meaning before and after we have this pristine system. this problem that you just alluded to has been xl@guing our political system as a poison way before citizens united in a fundamental and radical way in 2009. dick durbin said that banks own the place. so, for me, whatever you want to have a debate about the scope of the first amendment, you'll always have free speech if you approach this problem by trying to restrict the spending of money and political speech and have huge loopholes and they have been doing that for decades and that's why i think the much better approach, you mentioned professor earlier, what he has is proposals for campaign finance so -- >> public finance. >> public finance. so, welfare others even if citizens united went the other way, would not be able to compete. but if you have robust public finance, that's how you start to level the playing field. >> i think, i want to talk more about solutions and bring in montana governor joining us this morning. governor, i want to get first your reaction to ruling because, obviously, this is grounded in a specific history of montana politics, which doing a little cursory research around is pretty eye opening. i would like you to give us a little sense of what the rationale was for the original vision of this law. >> well, 120 years aaago, a couple of the richest people were the copper kings. and, look, they owned everything. they owned the mines and they owned the newspapers and they bought the legislature outright. in fact, when we first sent a u.s. senator to washington, d.c., william a. clark, one of the two copper kings, he advertised in his newspapers that heç would pay $10,000 cas money to any montana legislature who would send him to u.s. senator. remember, we didn't directly address those senators at that point. standing just off the lench slachive floor and in every one of those envelopes ten, $1,000 bills. he went off to washington, d.c., and those senators refused to see him. they said, my god, you can't advertise and you can't open daylight and you just can't give $10,000 to become a u.s. senator. now, they all bribed their way into the u.s. senate, but smaller sums of money and dark and giving it to their girlfriend instead. simon clemens said that william a. clark was the biggest scoundrel to ever serve the united states senate and he went on to say, that is saying something. william a. clark himself, he said, i never bought a man that wasn't for sale. so in 1912, finally, the citizens, not the legislature, they were all owned by the copper kings, the legislature wouldn't move on this because they were paid for. it was the referendum that people of montana, 1912, we passed the anti-corruption act. we said, look, we're not going to allow these corporations to continue to loop our land and kill the miners that are working in them, we're going to have a legislature that works for the people. so, for 100 years we did. we had a pure democracy. we had legislatures who were farmers and lawyers, they're doctors and nurses. they would serve just 90ç days every other year and they would raise $3,000 to $6,000, maximum contributions is $160. so, we had a system that actually worked. and the supreme court, in washington, d.c., a place where nothing works, they've told us, no, we don't like your system, we think you ought to go to the corrupt system that we're using in washington, d.c. what could go wrong? >> governor, i want to read this mark twain quote. he said of clark, he has said to have bought legislatures and dges by other food. by his example, he has so excused and sweetened corruption that in main tanna, it no longer has an offensive smell. >> good old days. >> that's mark twain on senator william corporal. but i guess the question here is how much of that was the context of the time? you made a key point that gets into the discussion we're having. he went to the senate and the senate refused to see him and, of course, all those other senators bribed their way into the senate, as well, though with slightly more obscure and tactical means. i think the debate we're having at the table is precitizens united to post-citizens united is it a difference in degree or a difference -- >> guilded age? you're calling that the guilded age and this is not? they were pipers compared to what we're doing now. in 1977 congress passed legislation the ford act. walmart got into big trouble because they went down to mexic could build a walmart where people were buried or something. they didn't get in trouble mexico, but in the united states. if you're going to bribe a politician and you're an american company or an american individual, you have to give it to american politicians, you can't give it to a foreigner. what kind of system is this? >> governor, i want you to stay with us because i want to get the panel in on this. lots to say right here. we'll take a quick break and be right back. how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card! why settle for less? testing hot tar... great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? here's your invoice. trick question. i love everything about this country! including prilosec otc. you know one pill each morning treats your frequent heartburn so you can enjoy all this great land of ours has to offer like demolition derbies. and drive thru weddings. so if you're one of those people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day, block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. governor from the great state of montana. in the wake of the supreme court striking down a corruption law that had stood for over 120 years in montana. glenn, do you have a question for the governor? >> i think most people are horrified by the corporate politics and one of the controversies over the republican primary campaign is you had these extremely wealthy billionaires pouring unlimited sums of money into legislatures. iffluencing your state and local races? >> it absolutely did. we had limits on how much money could be used in these campaigns. and it kept third parties out. so, our state elections stayed clean and then the federal elections, we were watching incrementally as these congressional races, they ; incrementally allow more and more of this outside money and so-called advertising that was just informational, call your congressman and tell him to start squeezing the life out of kitty cats. that sort of thing started coming in. you didn't see that in state elections. you saw it federal elections. >> but was there anything in the montana law that prevented individuals fromç coming in an call your state legislature and ask them to stop doing these horrible things because that kind of expending, hasn't that been constitutionally protected before citizens united and weren't they able to do that even with the validity of the montana law if. >> i think theyed and have probably been able to do it but they weren't doing it because the limits we had for the candidates were so low that they didn't bother to come into those races. i don't know. it could well have been that ten year s ago it could have starte with wealthy individual and not a corporation to do to the montana people, but it didn't happen. >> two points here just to your response. one, i said it before, these norms matter and there's been a shift in norms that has changed behavior of the accentric billionaire class. but having the protection, even if it's paper thin protection of some organization that is running the ads, as opposed, which doesn't seem to us to make that big of a difference because everyone is still reporting on sheldon addleson, but it does make a big difference in the court of cost benefits. >> maybe with their $10 million, this is an interesting character. freedom loving americans for freedom that's running the ad and they never hear about the donors behind it. >> i was in montana in 2006 doing the story a about howard rich who was funding all of these out of state referendums and then hiring out of state workers to começ in and collec the names on the petitions and they didn't, they didn't really know what they were asking people to sign and, you know, montanans are very, you know, they have a sense about their state and, suddenly, this is all taken care of within the state. suddenly hiring out of state workers and young people who don't know what they're talking about. when we follow the trail of the story, we came back and looked for howard rich's offices and rang his bell, you know, for about an hour. no answer. he didn't have to respond. he didn't want to talk to us and this is what was happening in 2006. >> you know, the two head scratching things for most average people in citizens united. money speech, corporations people. in most the average people think, no, corporations aren't people and money is not speech. the court affirmatively reinforced that and creates a new culture. in vermont, you know, we had a law that got struck down by the supreme court that put a limit on how much was spent. when you get this vast amount of money, it changes the whole discussion and it's not really a debate. >> i want to respond to that a little bit, this corporations people. because, you know, it is counterintuitive and as a matter of constitutional doctrine. i'm not a constitutional scholar, but that seems dicy to me and suspect. at the same time, there are certain corporations we do want to be protected speech wise. like "new york times" corporation isn't a person, but i want "new york times" corporation to have robust rights asç declared by msnbc. you know, them, too, that matters to me, as well. i was going for something that would be more broadly sympathetic. but, no, certain corporations we want to have these rates. governor, i want to ask you what -- we got into the solutions conversation which, to me, in some sense is the most important. the supreme court is what it is in the foreseeable future. we'll take a quick break. when we come back, i want to know what you think the solution is in the way forward, right after this. oh you too! ooh, hey america's favorite cereal is... honey nut cheerios ok then off to iceland! how math and science kind of makes the world work. in high school, i had a physics teacher by the name of mr. davies. he made physics more than theoretical, he made it real for me. we built a guitar, we did things with electronics and mother boards. that's where the interest in engineering came from. so now, as an engineer, i have a career that speaks to that passion. thank you, mr. davies. governor from montana, i want you to talk about what you see as the way forguard given the lay of the land as it is right now. >> well, one of the ways forward is people haven't thought about this. what about corporations. let's take citco, for example, sells oil and gas in the united states as many of you fill up at citco stations. why wouldn't they just dump $1 billion or $12 billion into races. how about iran? iran is concerned right now about the politics of the united states. why wouldn't they just spend a few billion dollars through one of their subsidiary corporations and then they can influence the election and they will find people friendly to iran to be elected. do you understand where this might be going? here's a couple things we need to do. number one, we ought to pass legislation, okay, we say citizens united, law of the land, but you have to prove that more than 95% of the persons and money in this corporation are american. we're not going to allow foreigners to own our çpolitic. public financing of elections, yes. allow people who are running and not taking these big dollars from rich individuals or corporations to have a fighting chance with public financing. but, third, i'm an optimist. i think as more and more people get their information from the internet, we're able to microtarget individuals with a message. it's these 30-second ads on television and people who are watching television but 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now, you're not going to be able to see these 30-second ads that cost a gazillion dollars influence folks. the internet is going to make it easier and easier for people with less dollars to get their message directly to the people you want to speak to. >> one thing that can't be overstated enough and people who aren't politicians themselves, you can't appreciate the fact that you do two things as a politician. you craze money for 90% of the time and then you run ads for the last 10%. that's what you do. that's what running for office is. i'm eating the ice cream cone at the county fair and showing up to talk to the local chamber of commerce, you're raising money to run ads and ad as move the needle more than anything. that's what we understand. that's the ball game, if you're running for office. >> right now the united states, governor, i'm actually interested in hearing your opinion on this. i think the united states now is kind of perceived as the place that is supposed to be symbolic of the most moderate, advanced democracy, is the place, if you have the most money, you can buy the election now. 3 c1election now. states is being looked at like, what is going on in your country? what i wanted to ask you, governor, precisely on a day like today where there are elections going on in mexico, in the country i was born. until now there was all kind of limits on spending and what you can say in ads and what you can't say in ads. this is a country that for years, for decades, had one party, basically. now they've gone into a lot more regulation. is that what you're saying, the united states needs to look to places like mexico to learn something about how to run more effective campaigns where spending is not out of control. >> either we can look in the rear view mirror because we had systems that were working or look at a other systems around the world. we are now the beacon of hope at the end of the mountain and that light is paid for by general electric. we are no longer the place people look to for clean elections. people understand around the world that in the united states we spend 100 times, 1,000 times more per elected official than any place else in the world. now, it's tough when you have the news being delivered by television stations who are filling their pockets with this money that are delivering information. why would they be against a system that is making them rich? >> that's actually a really great point. this is something we have been talking about on the staff editorially about covering. you know, there is a winner in all this, which is the campaign industrial complex. the more money that's in there and the more money to pay forç ads and that's particularly true for local television stations and such. great, great pleasure to have you on. come back any time. if you're ever through new york, i'd love to have you at the table. >> see you later. all right, let's talk about the second part of this, which is define citizens united is about corruption and in the majority decision written by anthony kennedy, obviously, we're not saying you have to disclose. disclosure is squarely within the state's compelling interest and be regulated as such, but that's not what we're seeing develop. let's talk about the dark money and the battle over disclosure, after this. let's plug in to summer savings before they're gone... ...without wasting an ounce of energy with smart machines that turn housework into house play. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, save $600 on this maytag french door refrigerator, just $1,598. ask me how i've never slept better. [ male announcer ] why not talk to one of the six million people who've switched to the most highly recommended bed in america? it's not a sealy, a simmons, or a serta. ask me about my tempur-pedic. [ male announcer ] did you know there's tempur-pedic for everybody? tempur-pedic beds now come in soft, firm, and everything in between. ask me how i can finally sleep all night. [ male announcer ] tempur-pedic -- the most highly recommended bed in america. and now there's a new surprisingly affordable tempur-pedic. ask me about my tempur-pedic. [ male announcer ] these real owners are talking about their new tempur simplicity beds. all the comfort and support of a tempur-pedic in a simple, clean design. ask me how it's just what we need. and nothing more. ask me what a step up this is from my spring mattress. ask me about a good night's sleep. [ male announcer ] the new tempur simplicity beds -- surprisingly affordable and all with a 10-year warranty. to learn more or find an authorized retailer near you, visit tempurpedic.com. tempur-pedic -- the most highly recommended bed in america. there's been this commitment to low prices. ♪ we might have had new ways to say it. but the commitment has never wavered. i should know. my name is valeda and i've worked for walmart for 50 years. ♪ ♪ enrique is laughing at me. i know the folks at home are digging it. so, disclosure issue is super important because, again, in citizens united they say disclosure perfectly appropriate. i want to show you the statistic to show you what actually is happened. 91% of independent tv ads from april are from groups that don't disclose donors. super pacs which we had a lot of conversation about. they're constituted, at least in the broad jurisdiction of election law and they disclose their donors. sheldon addleson wrote a $10 million check to the super pac. much larger percentage of ad as are from nonprofits and set themselves up because nonprofits are corporations, too. a broad, legal category here and constituted çbody. you had these nonprofits, for instance, karl rove's gps says, no, we are a public wealth organization and we are not in this just to run ads. we're there because that's what you have to be to not disclose their donors and then making use of citizens united and then use them chiefly as a vehicle to run ads, even though they say they aren't. the obama campaign has filed a complaint and is going to file in federal court, i think, if they don't hear back from the fcc, which they won't. asking crossroads gps to disclose their donors. here's karl rove responding to that request. >> it's a social welfare organization because it spends the vast perponderance of its money in social welfare and goals. this is an attempt to intimidate the people who might otherwise contribute to gps and this is frankly thuggish behavior. >> congressman, you've been working a lot on this disclosure issue. what do you make of where we are right now. >> congratulate mr. rove, i haven't seen such sincerity since we were talking about weapons of mass destruction in iraq. disclosure is basic. what you have is the number one thing is that who is promoting the ads. in any ad i run i have to be on the air at the end saying, i approve this ad. it does restrain you because people know that these really are promoting the message of the c campaign, but we don't know who the donors are. that is number one. three democrats, three republicans. their job is to do nothing because it's a 3-3 deadlock no matter what the question is. wild west rules. no, no rules of the road whatsoever. then, four, we do have a disclose act that virtually all the democrats are supporting in congress, but we can't get it through with a republican majority that would require, say, a ceo, if it's a corporate ad to say, i approve of this message and give shareholders the right to say whether they would rather have the profits of those companies based on political ads or to pay dividends. >> one thing that is really interesting, "a" we don't know who is giving the cross roads gps. second of all, what is fascinating in the wake of this as a united decision which says that corporation can spend out of their treasury run ads which is what american crossroads is doing. people did have the fear among liberals was like, oh, my god, shell is going to be running ads against barack obama or goldman sachs. that hasn't happened. what has happened is corporat n corporations have been set up as entities to funnel money and interest in all sorts of ways. we're not seeing as far as we know. the chamber of commerce and here in new york state, eric sniderman has filed suit withç the chamber of commerce for doing just that. >> the star foundation which was headed by the head of aig at the time and huge priority was to get legislation passed to sort of shield aig and other companies from -- >> social welfare. >> social welfare. basically a really elaborate system of money laundering. that's what we have right now. when you take a step back from all of these issues, you have to put it in the real moment we have in our democracy right now with the amount of money that, i know, it's hard to remember because we keep talking about how we're in a recession and the economy is soft, corporations are as profitable as they have ever been. there are more billionaires with more money and lower tax rates than there have ever been and the stakes are higher for them in state legislative races, all through congress and the presidency to make the policies that they want. we're really not going to recognize even the menu of policy options that we have, if we continue to let things like sort of just general sort of free speech absolute imp be divorced from the reality of the kind of country we want. >> when you think about the chamber of commerce, i think that conventional wisdom about the chamber of commerce, like the credit rating agencies. i think the conventional wisdom is people think, oh, no, they're independent. they're representing all business interests and the credit rating agencies, they're going to really give a rating based on the truth. >> right. >> and then you kind of peel it back and i think when you get to the core ofç what american peoe are feeling about all of othis stuff, wait a second, again, we're being told one thing and in spanish, actually, in mexico they have a name for it. it's called simulation where you're being told one thing is happening and something completely different is going on. >> this reputational game is very important. i mean, because it's -- that is the issue here is that, i mean, sheldon addleson and foster freeze got some attention and i don't think they like getting attention. it could be rough, right? i'm not world's smallest violin, et cetera. if we have this little peg to hang some accountability on. we know what you're doing in the system. i'm curious if you agree, glenn. i want to hear you make the case against disclosure, right after the break. [ male announcer ] fighting pepperoni heartburn and pepperoni breath? fight both fast with new tums freshers! concentrated relief that goes to work in seconds and freshens breath. new tums freshers. ♪ tum...tum...tum...tum... tums! ♪ [ male announcer ] fast relief, fresh breath, all in a pocket sized pack. [ male announcer ] fast relief, fresh breath, high schools in six states enrolled in the national math and science initiative... ...which helped students and teachers get better results in ap courses. together, they raised ap test scores 138%. just imagine our potential... ...if the other states joined them. let's raise our scores. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this. all right, glenn, i say that with all affection, no, but i am curious because we were talking off air, you know, in the same way that there is a genuine first amendment issues and we talked about "new york times" a nod in a speech does have, somewhat important history in the u.s. and i do wonder how you think what you think about-r th disclosure issue. >> i mean, it's a little strange of an experience to hear free speech absolutist being thrown around from the left, as you have done a couple times because this is the phrase that has been used by conservatives for decades against those of us who have defended free speech and the first amendment. we have to defend the country against terrorists and against communist and against immigrants and against these rebelç rousi groups. yes, free speech is important, but, there are these things that are more important. an anonymous speech has an amazingly and significant history in american liberalism and activism on the left. one of the strategies for trying to prevent unpopular groups and getting support was to publicize their supporters. get the membership list of the naacp or groups being american communist party. you can't have free speech and rights unless you also have the right to support unpopular groups without having the public know that you're doing that. of course, the federalist people were -- at the same time, an extraordinarily menacing problem that huge amounts of money are flying around our democracy without knowing where it is coming from. people like karl rove, you keep making the argument and i agree with you 1,000%, but i say the gravest threat to democracy is that extremely wealthy people can buy the democracy. i just don't think that you're ever going to remotely solve that problem through campaign finance laws because you'll always have massive loopholes. what you need to do is, even with a is system of robust campaign restrictions, you won't have groups representing welfare mothers. you have to level the playing field by spreading out the political money. >> this is the argument about leveling up as opposed to leveling down. with the public, some sort of public finance system, youhlevl up, right? people get, you know, a bunch of different visions for what this looks like. >> vouchers, not just -- >> $100. >> overflow corporate money and really level the playing field. if you want lobbyists, they don't have to turn to corporations any longer and they can turn to individuals. >> that is doable. i support public financing and campaigns, but it has no chance of getting past. it just doesn't. so, we can talk about this, but i don't think it's a realistic possibility and the big question is, is money speech? so, you could have nondisclosure, you could have anonymity for a lot of the first amendment, but if money is speech, then the folks with money are going to speak the most. >> just really quickly on that, i mean, the idea of corporations not having constitutional rights, i don't think nobody really accepts. if congress tomorrow introduced a law saying msnbc could liberalate and my rights are being violated constitutionally. money not being speech, all nine members of the supreme court all accepted the idea that it would be a first amendment violation, if congress said, no liberals can pay money to take out ad as in newspapers advocating for immigration reform. so, i don't think that is very realistic either. i think it's much more realistic to try to get people on the right and left to realize that corporations are owning and running our democracy and we need to do something about that. >> right. i completely agree on public financing. i think the fair elections now act, which is actually the number of co-sponsors in theç house and i think, honestly, if the entire progressive and tea party community really pushed to sort of demand that members of congress actually take a vote on this issue, i think we would have some momentum. i think that's incredibly essential. but at the same time, i think we have a value in this country around political equality that is about more. >> i want to play mitch mcconnell real quick. he is making the argument that you're making. check it out. >> this is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment, and intimidation. you all heard about the idaho businessman who became a target of the president and causes the president opposes. shortly after being publicly singled out by the president's campaign, people were digging through his divorce records, cable television hosts were going after him on the air and bloggers were harassing his kids. charles and david coke have become household names, not for the tens of thousands of people they employ, not for their generosity to charity, and not for building up one of the most successful private corporations on the planet, but because of their forceful apologetic and defense of populism. >> that speech was entitled "it's hard out there for a politcrat." that was the title of the crack. this is where the rubber meets the fact of the matter is, you know, protecting the segregated south, that right is now being used by -- >> by segregationists. >> not just oil billionaires. aalso fund litigation to dismantle voluntary immigration. >> will be with us to react to the supreme court's decision this week, that's coming up. this is new york state. we built the first railway, the first trade route to the west, the greatest empires. then, some said, we lost our edge. well today, there's a new new york state. one that's working to attract businesses and create jobs. a place where innovation meets determination... and businesses lead the world. the new new york works for business. find out how it can work for yours at thenewny.com. hello from new york, i'm chris hayes. with me this morning, congressman peter welch, democrat from vermont, maria, anchor of npr and glenn greenwald. if you thought there was confusion over the supreme court's health care ruling, consider one of the court's other major decisions on immigration harsh statute. scholars are still debating what effect this mixed decision will have on immigration policy. the court deemed most of the law unconstitutional, including a provision that made it illegal to be an immigrant in arizona without carrying documentation, another that made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to solicit work. but left in place the bill's controversial centerpiece, which requires arizona police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop, if they have reason to believe those people are in the country illegally. justice anthony kennedy writing for the majority admitted in his opinion "there is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced." that uncertainty has not stopped politicians onç both sides fro claiming victory. here's jan brewer with the court's decision on monday. >> protect the citizens of arizona to take up the fight against illegal immigration in a balanced and constitutional way has unanimously been vindicated by the highest court in the land. >> despite the court's mixed ruling, it remains a very committed grassroots conservative movement on passing harsh immigration laws across the country. five more states have passed statutes inspired by the arizona law and we'll talk to one of the architects of the original arizona law about those efforts just a bit in the program. maria, you just got back from arizona and been reporting on this issue -- >> my entire career. >> yes, your entire career. >> i mean, no, seriously, it's ridiculous. i mean, 25 years? we can't figure this out, can't get it right, the executive order from the president, which i call a temporary, temporary protective status with no real end in sight. the supreme court ruling, you know what really freaked me out, chris, i have to tell you, when i would hear from people, it wasn't that bad. oh, it wasn't that bad. i am just like, what's not talked about right now and what has me so worried is that i think there are so many people really well-meaning people who really don't understand the level of how this has changed things for specifically latinos in our country. >> i want you to explain çthat though. when you say this, you are talking about sp-1070. >> when you say change things, what does change things mean? >> people have been isolated and targeted in our country forever, it's true. but what this has done, if you are latino now, every latino in this country knows now that anywhere at any time not just in the state of arizona, any official essentially can ask you to justify your existence. i know people are like, wait a second, but how -- why? because what the supreme court has said -- >> and it's upheld, just so people are clear. the thing it did uphold is the most controversial part of the law. that was upheld and they basically said, we're going to seek, we're not going to declare this out of bounds before its implementation, we'll allow it to be enforced and people coming back to the court in a way that's constitutionally permissible. >> we'll have to prove at what level to how bad will it get before the supreme court has to jump in? what i was trying to say is that a, to me, that is an issue. you have the fastest growing demographic in our country, 43% in the last decade..o now, basically, walking around thinking, wow, i mean yesterday i asked somebody who i know here in new york city who is undocumented. we were on the show talking about this, it's already here in new york, right? >> she said, no, we walk the streets knowing that at whatever time, we can be stopped. and there is aç sentiment that this, that this one piece of the law that has been agreed to. there is a sentiment that is now rippling throughout our country. and, for me, the fact that, for example, heather, you probably, you may be walking around with other kinds of concerns. but knowing that you are not going to be stopped and asked by a law enforcement official to present your citizenship status, that says something right there that i fly to arizona and i'm like, got to take my passport. my driver's license is not going to do me any good. maybe heather going down there isn't thinking about that. what does that say about these core issues of who we are as people. most people really don't understand the deepness that this goes and what it means, particularly to latinos and, of course, anyone who is an immigrant. >> maria, i was going to ask. i support comprehensive immigration reform and congress has failed to do that. but my take on the supreme court decision, it was a very positive thing in two respects. number one, it reasserted the federal law as a opposed to the states being able to act and the state that arizona took a very punitive approach and then, secondly, even on show me the papers, i understand the decision. if somebody has an illegal status and that's known, they can be asked about it. but what the court explicitly said, they're going to see how it is enforced. if it turns out it's racial profiling basically because of the color of your skin, thatsç the basis of congress, they have "reasonable suspicion." that's constitutionally suspect. >> we should note one of the clever things that was done in the law, it says in the law itself, that this requirement to check the status of people that you have reasonable -- done in the constitution of the united states. it's the letter of the law. >> okay, so just tell me. you describe for me. we're not even talking about the term illegal. >> right. >> which elle taught me 20 years ago he just said, you know what, the jews were declared illegal and that's how the holocaust started. to declare a population illegal. you tell me the reasonable suspicion. how do you define what the reasonable suspicion is. i have to go back to my former network and not just laying it all on lou dobbs, although he wishes it was all on him. >> there was the use of the media every single night to put an image of this person and the broken borders and this person is going to do this and what is that image? unfortunately, we all that image in our minds. racial profiling is going to exist and will exist until we can prove that it is existing and then we'll go back. in that decade, how many lives will be shattered? >> i think, you know, the obama administration deserves a lot of credit to bringing the suit to stop the law. but one of the things that happened in this, before the supreme court was the justice department chosehnot to raise the argument that the show me your papers was unconstitutional on nondiscriminatory grounds. part of the reason they did that because they didn't win and i'm interested in your thoughts on this. one of the things arizona says, look, the federal government asks states to do things like this, with them, all of the time. that's what all of the supreme court said, given how much they're deporting on the federal level and using state officials to -- >> we're going to have one of the men who wrote the arizona bill and adviser mitt romney with us. we'll ask him some of these questions. right after this break. for me, it's really about building this extraordinary community. american express is passionate about the same thing. they're one of those partners that i would really rely on whether it's finding new customers, or, a new location for my next restaurant. when we all come together, my restaurants, my partners, and the community amazing things happen. to me, that's the membership effect. the charcoal went out already? [ sighs ] forget it. [ male announcer ] there's more barbeque time in every bag of kingsford charcoal. kingsford. slow down and grill.  in every bag of kingsford charcoal. what happens when classroom teachers get the training... ...and support they need? schools flourish and students blossom. that's why programs like... ...the mickelson exxonmobil teachers academy... ...and astronaut sally ride's science academy are helping our educators improve student success in math and science. let's shoot for the stars. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this. we're discussing the fallout on the immigration bill and i want to bring in kansas secretary of state, one of the co-authors of the original arizona immigration statute. chris, thank you for joining us this morning, we really appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> first, i want to get your reaction. as someone who, a graduate of yale law and someone who is a lawyer and helped craft the legislation it seems in some senses a pretty dect rebuke that the court found three of the four provisions were explicitly preempted by federal law and, thus, unconstitutional. >> i want to correct not a misstatement there were a total of about eight provisions in the law, four weren't even challenged or they were upheld by the district court and never went up to the supreme court. we're really talking about the vast majority of the law five of eight provisions beingç upheld and the one governing stops and arrest protocols being upheld. the two really operative ones that were struck down were relatively minor in the sense that they would not come into play very often. for example, the penalization of employees for illegally seeking work. you wouldn't really see that being prosecuted unless you saw a specific investigation of an employer and they happened to find some employees that would be battling the law. the one that comes into play literally every day in arizona is the arrest provisions which, of course, is the one we have been talking about for the past two years. >> one of the other provision struck down, to criminalize being undocumented in arizona, as a criminal penalty misdemeanor, which is to convert a similar infraction to a criminal one. >> actually, no, it doesn't do that. it really is important to read the law, i know you guys have a lot of work to do. but what it did, the provision. it said if a person is committing the federal, criminal offense, then you are also committing a state misdemeanor, a criminal defense of exactly the same nature. it was already a crime to be in the united states without being registered. that's been on the u.s. books since 1941 or '42. 60 years. >> it is not a criminal infraction? >> it is. title 8 section 1304 and 1306 of the u.s. code. you can check it out afterward, if you like. >> if the idea behind -- this gets to liberal suspension of the law and it's motivation. ifç the idea behind the employees, for instance, seeking work. you said, that's not going to be enforced that much and it's not that big a part of the law, we can deal with it. why include it in the law? the answer that i think folks watching this go down, it's demgroggery. what you want to say, we're going to punish these people and for you to come up and say it's not that important part of the law, why include it in the law if it seems to be a political attempt to make things seem as punitive as possible? >> it's sort of like the all of the above approach to energy. the idea is you want to create disincentives for people to be breaking federal law within the state of arizona. some of the disincentives are big ones and you try to look at various ways in which the state could encourage people to comply with the law. in most cases, comply with u.s. federal law and come back in some other time legally and this is just, the fact that it would opaerate against employees seeking work and that's not as uncommon as people being investigated or stopped for other crimes. doesn't mean you don't do that. the state wanted to stop adoption through enforcement and the idea is if you ratchet up the level of law enforcement on various levels, that encourages people to comply with the law and that is really the essential concept of deterrence. >> can i ask you this question? why do you care about this issue? you vote devote a lot of time to this issue. you're one of the intellectual arct tects of the law that have now passed in a lot of places. you've beenç advising the romn campaign. what gets you up in the morning? why is this the thing that animates you? >> well, this is an issue that affects so many other issues that all of us, i believe, should care about. one of them is, of course, unemployment. we're in theory worried about not being able to put food on the table. one way you help u.s. citizens and aliens who are authorized to work in the united states is you remove illegal labor from the equation. if they're competing against illegal labor, it is hard for americans to put food on the table and another one is security. five of the nine hijackers broke our immigration laws after they arrived in the united states. >> you have read the studies that we know when you actually and forget about human rights violations or due process or the core of who we are in the country of being in a country of immigrants. when you look at just the numbers what happened after republican president ronald reagan created a path through citizenship through comprehensive immigration reform in 1986 in the immigration control and reform act. actually, what that ended up doing was1ñ creating jobs in th united states of america because what you do, you have people who are actually working here who are stuck now in this limbo. in fact, in the state of arizona, all the undocumented immigrants to leave. by the way, they're not going to. this is what they're saying to me. but were they to leave, it would be an economic tsunami in arizona. so, the fact çis, the numbers, again, forgetting all about the political rhetoric, the talk, the numbers actually shows that comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship. you would have home ownership going up and you would have people opening small businesses and you would have all of these people paying in, they're already paying in, but even more so. so, as somebody who cares about jobs. why you're so much standing in the way of actually creating a, i don't know, a minor economic revolution 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants to be brought in. >> i want you to answer that question, but we'll take a break first. to whip up dinner. let's plug in to summer savings before they're gone... ...without wasting an ounce of energy with smart machines that turn housework into house play. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, save $600 on this maytag french door refrigerator, just $1,598. with two times the points on dining in restaurants, you may find yourself asking why not, a lot. chase sapphire preferred. kansas secretary of state kris kobach. kris, we forget, you can't see us. that was maria talking to you and, you know, it's a case of, i find compelling about the economic benefits that come from bringing people out of the shadows. the economic benefits that come from immigration. >> well, i think if you look at the numbers, though, they really don't add up. here are important numbers to consider. one is you have almost 25 million americans who are either unemployed or underemployed and you have approximately of the 11 million illegal aliens here you have 7 million in the workforce. those are 7 million jobs that u.s. citizens could be vying for and putting food on the table. $2.6 trillion, $2.6 trillion is the estimated cost to us taxpayers, if we were to grant an amnesty to the 11 million here because they suddenly become eligible for all kind of welfare benefits, social security, earned income tax credits. >> what time horizon is that numberç over? >> ten year. >> $260 billion a year? that seems radically -- >> you didn't hear me, $2.6 trillion -- >> over a ten-year time horizon? that's a $260 billion a year, which just seemed erratically, erratically inflated number. here's a question about jobs. 4 million of those folks are farm workers and we've seen in alaba alabama, right, we're not seeing americans or native-born americans work on the farms. instead what we've seen are crops going follow and a massive near revolt from thing a rucultural business in alabama over this and this gets to motivation and i know motivation in some ways, but i think it's important because we will have a good faith debate on this. you need to convince me and convince folks on the other side, which is to say, movement against immigration to restrict immigration, and to ramp up enforcement was before the recession and after recession. before 9/11 and after 9/11. it seems to me like the rationales are reverse against the desire to get those people out rather than in reaction in good faith to events that are happening. >> look at a number of factors. one is the law itself prohibits any racial profiling in four different places. reiterate it, again and again. you cannot regard to a person's race, ethnicity or national origin. so, i understand some people who are critical of the law are grasping at straws trying to figureç out what argument they can make and they hit on racial profiling and the law prohibits it. i heard maria make a comment two segments ago. how else can you determine from a traffic stop or some other investigation that a person is potentially and lawfully present, the answer is there are more than 800 federal court opinions defining factors that have nothing to do with race that can give rise to reasonable suspici suspicion. so, for example, the person carries no identification documents whatsoever. second, the person is traveling in the company of another individual who concedes he is unlawfully present in the country. third, the individual has indicators that he's been on a long journey through the desert and maybe carrying a backpack, dust all over his clothes. fourth, the individual is evasive when he answers officers' questions. i can go on and on. it oversimplifies things and it is that attack when you say someone who is making a reasonable argument, oh, you must be all about race. that is absolutely outrageous. this used to be a country where the rule of law counted. >> here what is going to happen in arizona. when i think about the amount of money being spent right now and what it would take to "deport all these people from the country." you know what people are going to start doing in arizona, this is what i'm hearing from the grassroots is that they're going to say, okay, none of us are going to be carrying papers. no one, whatsoever. >> the law doesn't require you to carry papers. section 2 -- >> no, but the point is -- >> the law doesn't require people to carry papers. >> the only thing they're required to say by state law in arizona when you're stopped by the police right now is to give your name and your date ofç birth. you actually, by state law, are not required to -- >> that's all you need. >> right, so, what's going to happen is all of these people who are going to get detained or act in civil disobedience will be detained. that's all they're going to say. they're going to start clogging the system and you'll talk about how much it is going to cost and how much taxpayers in arizona will pay to house all of these people. let's talk about all these dollars -- >> here to me seems like the bigger issue. >> really important fact here. >> please. >> the federal government in the 1990s created the law enforcement support center. a 24/7 hotline so that if an answer has stopped someone and all he has is the person's name and date of birth he can call from the squad car and get an immediate response back from i.c.e. >> but, kris, let's be very clear here, first of all, police officers encounter situations all the time, all day, every day in which they are making discretionary judgments. you can, i mean, you've talked with cops. a cop can come up with someone to arrest almost anyone they need in any interaction. they're making on the ground discretionary judgments all the time. they're asked to be essentially conflict mediators. it's an extremely difficult job and i think people underappreciate the amount of frontline discretion that police f officers have. just because something is on the law, it does not mean it's always enforced. jaywalking tickets in new york city and the police officers do not spend their time giving outç jaywalking tickets because it would be a massive waste of everyone's time. the narrow legalism which you are defending here, i understand, things are on the books or they're not on the books, the fact of the matter is, there is a practical implication in terms of how law enforcement is going to serve the community with what they're tasked with serving and view people with this suspicion. there is a fear that maria is articulating it is already a fact on the ground and that the law is making it worse. >> well, i'm not sure what you're implying. if you're implying law enforcement officers will use racist motivations in applying the law, your problem is not with sb-70 your problem is with officers. he can apply any law that can do with anything in a racially -- >> no, the problem is the priorities of law enforcement and how law enforcement is going about doing what is an incredibly difficult job of making 1,000 discretionary judgment calls over the course of the week when they are in different situations how this is going to put added freight on them. in fact, there has been tremendous amount of law enforcement members of law enforcement who have spoken out against the law for precisely this reason. >> well, it depends on which law enforcement members you're talking to. if you're talking to the police officers on the beat, the sheriff's deputies, people i know very well in arizona, there's a tremendous amount of support for the law. if you're talking about sheriffs, there is a tremendous support. some police chiefs have opposed the law, they have more bureaucratic mindset and they don't like anyç additional dut. so, it depends on which law enforcement officers you're talking to. if you are talking about the men and women on the street, they actually like the law a lot. >> mitt romney had a statement on this. back in february at the cnn debate, this is what he said about the arizona law. check it out. >> you know, i think you see a model here in arizona. they passed a law here that says, that says that people who come here and try to find work, that the employer is required to look them up e-verify. this system allows employers in arizona to know who is here illegally. going back to the question that was asked. the right course for america to drop these lawsuits against arizona and other states that are trying to do the job that barack obama isn't doing and i will drop those lawsuits on day one. >> and then, i want to read you mitt romney's statement after arizona on monday. today's decision underscores a need to work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. i believe each state has the duty and right to preserve our borders and no where in that statement is an explicit statement of whether he supports the court's decisionçy to strik down those provisions or whether he supports legislation like this and i want you to talk about where you see the romney campaign right now because it is very difficult to figure out where they are on this issue, right after we take a break. [ sighs ] forget it. [ male announcer ] there's more barbeque time in every bag of kingsford charcoal. kingsford. slow down and grill. in every bag of kingsford charcoal. what happens when classroom teachers get the training... ...and support they need? schools flourish and students blossom. that's why programs like... ...the mickelson exxonmobil teachers academy... ...and astronaut sally ride's science academy are helping our educators improve student success in math and science. let's shoot for the stars. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this. thor's couture gets the most rewards of any small business credit card. your boa! [ garth ] thor's small business earns double miles on every purchase, every day! ahh, the new fabrics, put it on my spark card. [ garth ] why settle for less? the spiked heels are working. wait! [ garth ] great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? [ cheers and applause ] kris kobach coming to us live from kansas, secretary of state of kansas, live from nebraska. beautiful pastoral seed and hummingbeads hummingbirds in the feeder, which adds a nice thing. you advise on the romney administration and a feeling thatç it is increasingly difficult to pin down mitt romney's perspective on this. he seemed to endorse or flirt with the notion of something looking like the dream act or something like the rubio alternative or the president's directive that was issued through dhs. what is the plan here for mitt romney on immigration? is it something that looks on the federal level what is happening in the states in alabama and arizona and other places that you helped to write the legislation? >> i think there are a number of things that governor romney has said and he has remained very consistent in hissism position on these. he said we should have a nationwide everify mandate. to make sure their employees are work verified and now three states have that requirement. he said let's make it a national requirement. another thing he said, no amnesty, so, no blanket amnesty, no small amnesty and no small amnesty for those who are here, as well. his administration would not go around suing states using our taxpayer dollars to sue states that are trying to help better enforce the rule of law. >> sometimes in violation of the constitutional guidelines. >> well, no, actually, the vast majority of the law, the constitution, we're talking about preemption here, whether it's consistent with federal law and the vast majority of the law is upheld. >> constitution aal doctrine. >> you may not be clear when the arizona law was passed, there were five separate lawsuits challenging the sameç provisio of the law and then the obama administration piled on and it was a complete waste of our taxpayer dollars. the same provisions make their way up through the court system anyway. why do that? more of a political stunt in 2010 going into that election cycle. >> or to express precisely to defend this important principle, which is that the federal government is the sovereign -- >> same principle -- >> it's important for -- >> for me, we're missing a really important point, which is actually not about enforcement. not about where we are now, but asking, why are we in a situation where we have 11 million people in this country who are here without documentation. and if we're really having that conversation, it would cause us all to answer the question, what is my own american story? all of us sitting around this table who are here in this country have an american story that was impacted by whatever the rules were when our ancestors kanl came to this cou. my american story is a story of slavery and most white americans today was a story where their ancestors came here before 196 a when we had racial quotas on who could come to this country. so, today, we have all these people who are here, who are here in the situation where we have only 65,000 family visas. you know, where it's really very difficult to come to this country legally where people are coming here to work and the sort of broaderç policies that make the sort of legal versus illegal distinction are really ignored and a lack of empathy that there before the grace of god and amnesty reform in 1986. >> you know what is interesting because a lot of people, i talk about the fact that i was born in mexico and became a citizen in the late 1980s and, actually, i appreciate what you're saying. heather, everybody needs to take a time to look at their own story and first undocumented immigrants that stepped on this land were the pilgrims and, actually, for me, one of the core reasons why this matters to me, not just because i have been a reporter covering this for 20 years. it matters to me because of my citizenship because of these core american values, due process, how people will be treated under the law equally in our country. when you decide to become a citizen of this country, you actually have to sit and think about these things. you have to make, you're going to go in and take an oath. so, for me, chris, what really matters is the core of who we are as an american country based on due process and based on equally treated under the law and based on free speech and the fact is that these core issues continue to bubble up and question, go at this core root of who we are as americans. >> congressman, then i'll get to you, kris. >> kris, you raised the economic question and i think that's profoundly important. but the economy right now, more illegal immigrants going back to mexico than coming from mexico. also, the heart of the political debate in this country right now is will the government promote economic policies that develop and strengthen the middle class. that's underç assault. in fact, the middle class and average americans are feeling that. 40% of their wealth has vanished since the subprime crisis. the same or lower than they were 20 years ago. this immigration issue oftentimes becomes a proxy to explain to people why they're having tough times. it's illegal welfare. people getting benefits that they're paying for that they can't get. >> and it becomes that proxy. so, the romney campaign has a convenient explanation for why folks are hurting and i think the immigration issue becomes a way to do that. >> how much, chrkris, you talke about the jobs and job matching of how many americans are out of work and how many people are here undocumented. how much do you see current immigration as the root cause of the problems right now economically? >> well, it is a huge part of it. but the rule of law is the rule of law, regardless. let's set that aside. even if we were enjoying wonderful economic times, we have the country where the rule of law is supposed to prevail. if you follow the law, supposed to be in a favored position and that's elementary. let's set that aside. these laws are not a product of economic recession. but to your question, here are some other numbers. george borhas an economist looked at the impact on wages when you have illegal wab labor influx of labor coming into a market. think of"mq packing. over the short term wages will drop 8% and over the long term they'll drop 3%. we're talking, look at the wages at meat packing a very common industry in the midwest here. 30 years ago you walked into a meat packing facility and see lots of u.s. citizens working in those jobs and it was paying really well. in fact, it was paying better than it is today, in some cases. and, by the way, some are still uniized today and some aren't. here i am perfectly happy to say if the unions help protect the american worker, the more power to them. but now you go to the same meat packing plants and they're lower in absolute dollars. they're at the floor. it's hard to earn a living wage working in a plant like that. illegal labor has depressed the wages. i don't think anyone will seriously dispute that. >> who is paying those wages and who is making the decisions to lower those wages. not those workers. >> an economist out of harvard university and has written a lot on wage effects on this. the actual literature of illegal immigration is incredibly contested and not necessarily matched by other people but i think it's interesting to say, you read that story the 3% prediction over the duration, over the long term. a drop in the beginning and 3% cut over time. when you think to yourself, i want to stop people from getting a 3% wage cut. there are 9,000 things you can do before you look at illegal immigration. if we're talking about a 3% wage cut, there are a o] of things we can talk about. and on small business saturday they remind a nation of the benefits of shopping small. on just one day, 100 million of us joined a movement... and main street found its might again. and main street found its fight again. and we, the locals, found delight again. that's the power of all of us. that's the power of all of us. that's the membership effect of american express. there's been this commitment to low prices. ♪ we might have had new ways to say it. but the commitment has never wavered. i should know. my name is valeda and i've worked for walmart for 50 years. ♪ ♪ trick question. i love everything about this country! including prilosec otc. you know one pill each morning treats your frequent heartburn so you can enjoy all this great land of ours has to offer like demolition derbies. and drive thru weddings. so if you're one of those people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day, block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. [ chuckles ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ male announcer ] now you'll know when to stop. [ honk! ] the all-new nissan altima with easy fill tire alert. [ honk! ] it's our most innovative altima ever. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪ thin coffee shops. people who i thave been out of work. you can tell it wears on them. narrator: he's fought to pull us out of economic crisis for three years. and he still is. president obama's plan keeps taxes down for the middle class, invests in education and asks the wealthy to pay their fair share. mitt romney and his billionaire allies can spend milions to distort the president's words. but they're not interested in rebuilding the middle class. he is. i'm barack obama and i secretary of state of the great state of kansas. here's a question to get to this kind of where, what theç goal all this is. i understand and respect your deference to the rule of law and the importance of that and your thinking on this issue. in terms of effects, let's say you everify and a whole bunch of things in place and this process of self-deportation and it happened more rapidly than anyone can imagine. in two months, the 11 million folks estimate, 11 million or 12 million undocumented leave the country. what is better about america on that day? >> wages will dramatically go up instantly as soon as that happens. when you look at examples on a smaller scale when i.c.e. comes in and doing a raid on a georgia plant about five years ago, immediately those jobs are empty, right? for a few days or a few weeks the plant shuts down but they start rehiring and they have to raise wages to get legal aliens to do it and wages go up and you would see that in all kind of industries and wages would go up and people would be able to earn a decent living and raise a family. >> so, is that the reason that you're doing -- is that the reason you're in this game? >> just one of many reasons. of course, there's social security. there's that factor, as well. when you have a huge percentage, many millions of people in the united states who are able to enter illegally. there's no screening by any law enforcement personnel as they're entering at the port. there is no port of entry and all kind of reasons why we ought to try to reinforceç the rule law and solve some immigration problems we have. >> heather? >> one of the reasons why wages are low in industries on undocumented work is that those people have no economic and civil mroil rights to bargain with their employer. one way to do it, which is a massive deportation and another way to do it, actually bring the people out of the economic shadows and allow them to bargain with their employers and open small businesses, as maria was saying. so, actually, if really what you want is the sort of economic boom that would come from raising those wages, mr. kobach, why isn't it just as good to have actually more dignity for people? >> kris, very briefly. >> what you're suggesting is, okay, let's just automatically give lawful citizenship to people and you're forget -- >> i'm not forgetting the 25 million people who are looking for work in this country. >> you increased the legal labor pool but haven't found any jobs for the others who are waiting and seeking work. we have a situation where we are a welfare state, that is the difference between immigration today and immigration 60 years ago. you have to consider that. what about the people out of work and the rest of us are paying our tax dollars. we have an interest on reducing unemployment and solving our legal immigration problems by enforcing the law will do. >> i don't think that, but i want to thank kris kobach forç joining us. you have been a really good sport, thanks a lot. >> no problem. what you should know for the news week ahead, coming up next. [ male announcer ] fighting pepperoni heartburn and pepperoni breath? fight both fast with new tums freshers! concentrated relief that goes to work in seconds and freshens breath. new tums freshers. ♪ tum...tum...tum...tum... tums! ♪ [ male announcer ] fast relief, fresh breath, all in a pocket sized pack. ovider is differenter ] fast relief, fresh breath, but centurylink is committed to being a different kind of communications company by continuing to help you do more and focus on the things that matter to you. the teacher that comes to mind for me is my high school math teacher, dr. gilmore. i mean he could teach. he was there for us, even if we needed him in college. you could call him, you had his phone number. he was just focused on making sure we were gonna be successful. he would never give up on any of us. sleep train's 4th of july sale is ending soon. time is running out to get the hottest deal on a new mattress. right now, save on sleep train's most popular posturepedic and beautyrest mattress sets. plus, pay no interest for 36 months on tempur-pedic and serta icomfort. big savings and interest-free financing? these deals aren't just hot... they're explosive! sleep train's 4th of july sale is ending soon. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ ♪ [ no audio ] am i miked now? great. okay. sorry. i wasn't miked. hi, how are you? i am miked. kris kobach, just on the air and made a claim about the possible cost of bringing the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country out of the shadows and putting them into the legal economy. he said it would cost $2.6 trillion trillion, $260 billion a year. the source of that statistic is a heritage analysis, and the analysis says this is an estimate. we need further study. congressional budget office, an independent body, analyzed the cost of the same bill that would have brought the 11 million into the legal network and found the net cost was just $18 billion, not $2.6 trillion. just to make that clear. what you should know for the week coming up. in the wake of the a court's decision giving the states the option to decline medicaid expansion, my colleague reported l last year, 89,000 children in pennsylvania alone lost access to the program because their parents didn't respond to an eligibility form in ten days. even if the paperwork was lost by the overwhelming state bureaucracy, children were still kicked off the roll and the protocols have not been changed despite the fact or because of the fact that the current system is tossing tens of thousands of kids out of the safety net. remember that loss that j pnp more gain reported. jamie dimon attempts to unwind this, total losses could be as high as $9 billion. any idiot can use a few million, but it takes a real genius to lose $9 billion. with corporate profits high, jpmorgan chase is still projected to post a profit for the quarter, even after writing off the massive loss. it's good to be a banger, even when times are rough. when my guests think you should know. what should folks know? >> two things, last thursday was a big day. democrats won the baseball game over the republicans. the supreme court made its decision on health care, big news for vermont. two things. the waiver -- they'll get a waiver to pursue the ambitious -- we can pursue the ambitious goal of single payer and subsidies give us the possibility to achieve that goal. >> that's fantastic. this waiver program is really interesting. put in the bill, didn't get a lot of notice. it allows states to experiment with singleç payer in the broa framework. >> exactly. >> and there is push in california. heather mcghee. >> on tuesday, the nation's most profitable and largest employer is going to celebrate its 50th anniversary. that's walmart which has replaced gm and man power as the biggest employer. we are celebrate by demos by making sure they don't wave the flag too much and the top ten ways that walmart has destroyed american manufacturing jobs. >> we'll look for that this week. and maria behihinojosa. >> look and see who is actually doing the cooking if you are going to a restaurant on july 4th or who is doing any kind of cleaning and see if they are, in fact, invisible people, undocumented mexicanos, latinos, and in a moment when they feel so attacked. look at them, i see you, are you not invisible. are you visible. and really quickly. a new quick movement of undocumented dreamers. traveling through -- to charlotte. taking their parents withgdñthe. will their parents get deported? the kids will be offered temporary protected status. we'll see. >> an amazing op-ed in "the new york times" by former president jimmy carter about thaw talked about the way the counterterrorism plan, drones and the like are destroying american credibility, a poll the same week, saying across the world in almost every country, huge numbers of populations in every country radically disapproved of the policies. what you are seeingç now, effos by "the new york times" to see the aclu, as well as democratic senators like ron lieden to get basic transparency about what the administration is using. >> thank you to my guests today. great conversation. thank you for joining us. back next weekend, saturday and sunday at 8:00 eastern time. our guests thomas mann and norm ornstein. up next, melissa harris-perry. in the wake of egypt's historic election, what does the landscape look like for women? "melissa harris-perry" next. we'll see you next week on "up." [ female announcer ] so how long have you been living flake-free with head & shoulders? since before jeans were this skinny... since us three got a haircut. since my first twenty-ninth birthday. [ female announcer ] live flake-free with head & shoulders. it starts working from your first wash. with seven benefits, there's no worries from flakes, itch or breakage. i haven't worried about flakes since my grunge days. remember them? trying not to. [ female announcer ] head & shoulders. live flake free.

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Montana ,Alabama ,Iran ,Vermont ,California ,Georgia ,Syria ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Iceland ,Iraq ,Egypt ,Nebraska ,Idaho ,Pennsylvania ,Kansas ,Spain ,France ,Montanans ,Americans ,America ,French ,Spanish ,Syrian ,American ,Dick Durbin ,Garth Sven ,Goldman Sachs ,Sheldon Addison ,Melissa Harris Perry ,Glenn Greenwald ,Ronald Reagan ,Chris Hayes ,Simon Clemens ,Mike Mcgrath ,Thomas Mann ,Peter Welch ,Heather Mcghee ,Jamie Dimon ,Mickelson Exxonmobil ,Lou Dobbs ,Kris Kobach ,Jimmy Carter ,Barack Obama ,Heather Mcgee Maria ,Spitzer ,Anthony Kennedy ,Mitch Mcconnell ,C William A Clark ,Nissan Altima ,Garth Thor ,William A Clark ,