corruption, whereas the conservatives think it s a protection of political speech, specifically under the guise of the first amendment. so bob, in this decision, what the justices were saying is it s not they didn t take away the amount of money per person you can give. they have removed the cap that said you could only give to x amount of people. now it s as many people as you want, and that s what they said was the first amendment issue. you think that this decision was wrong. why? i think it s horrible. i go back to the group i was working with was a plaintiff in the original campaign finance law and the aftermath of watergate, and then the decision made was to put individual contributions on $2,600 in a primary, $2,600 in a general, and an overall limit in the primaries. now, what they have said is okay, we re going keep the individual caps in place, but you can do almost anything you want everyplace else. you could go to the democratic
more candidates, parties, and committees. you know, it s not about the government regulating itself. it s about our free speech outside the government and our political process outside the government to choose who is going to be in the government. all right, that was shaun mccutchen, the plaintiff in the case. kimberly on a legal issue before we get to politics, the supreme court was looking at a first amendment claim. why do you think he won? the first amendment claim, i think, is very interesting. what i would look at, the language of the justices because it s telling. you can also see future decisions, things by the language they re employing now. what struck me was when i hear these justices talk about the collective, talk about the greater good, the greater group like that, to me, then i start to worry if they re making decisions based on the right reasons versus on behalf of a collective. right? so you have both sides kind of shaping this argument, each way. one saying first
with him a lot during the presidency. i got to know him well. we had a good relationship throughout. it got more tense as time went on. vladimir is a person who, in many ways, views the u.s. as an enemy, and although he wouldn t say that, i felt that he viewed the world as either u.s. benefits and russia loses or vice versa. he also had an interesting story about his dog barney and comrade vlad. our dear dog barney who has a special spot in my heart. i introduced him to putin. you really call that a dog. a year later, we visited him and he said, would you like to meet my dog? out bounds a huge dog. he said, bigger, stronger, and faster than barney. you kind of thought, is this symbolic of what he thinks? i took it in, didn t react. wow, anybody who thinks my dog is bigger than your dog is an interesting character. i like that story. it kind of gives you insight into the personalities, and it seems like they actually shared more than a cordial relationship, there was
reform. if this was supposed to be the work that republicans gave up the ghost on repealing obamacare, it doesn t work out that way. the courthouse said they exceeded their goal of getting 7 million americans to sign up for health care. president obama time-outed that big accomplishment, sent a clear message to the law s opponents. the debate over repealing this law is over. the affordable care act is here to stay. well what just days later the house voted for the 55th time to scale back some or all of obamacare. republicans were joined by 18 democrats in an effort to raise the hours. the redumeanwhile the house committee on oversight and gof reform was hosting a hearing. and then there was louisiana governor bobby again dal who revealed his own plan of sorts. i m certainly for repealing the obamacare law but i think we need to show the american people we ve got a better plan to lower health care costs and do what the president promised he was going to do in 2008. his
are going to be able to support more candidates, parties, and committees. you know, it s not about the government regulating itself. it s about our free speech outside the government and our political process outside the government to choose who is going to be in the government. all right, that was shaun mccutchen, the plaintiff in the case. kimberly on a legal issue before we get to politics, the supreme court was looking at a first amendment claim. why do you think he won? the first amendment claim, i think, is very interesting. what i would look at, the language of the justices because it s telling. you can also see future decisions, things by the language they re employing now. what struck me was when i hear these justices talk about the collective, talk about the greater good, the greater group like that, to me, then i start to worry if they re making decisions based on the right reasons versus on behalf of a collective. right? so you have both sides kind of shaping this argum