super pac world, they become the quarter in the oligopoly. two words that are uncomfortable. it s term limits. you take look at a president who won re-election in a second term, his overall body language changes. he doesn t have to worry about raising money. he makes tough decisions. so in the process, hypothetically, if, in fact, we had term limits at the senatorial limit and the congressional level, we may have a change. people say i won t take that phone call from richie rich or george p., because i don t have to worry about you. first of all, you made the single best case for president obama s re-election that i ever had a republican make. thank you. i like that. but i actually have been a long-time supporter of term limits, although very long term limits, i think there is a great deal of value in people gaining
coming with a blow torch here, but i think we need to remember that barack obama started this. and i m not saying it s a good thing or bad thing. you confide to me how barack obama started. make your point, robert. be true. tim russert asked him, would you take matching funds? he said under those circumstances would i take matching funds. i won t take matching funds. he did say that fast forward to after the primaries, he said, you know what? i m not going to take matching funds, i need to raise an unlimited amount of money to define myself and go after the republicans that s what he did. was it under the law not capped how much an individual could give? yes. okay, thank you. whoa. that s fair. you have a moment as a candidate, the man who becomes president says i won t do the public matching funds, go separate on this, but also at a
incentive to push back against this? ordinary people trying to fight back one vote at a time, collect all of this information. you tell me there is a group of well organized professional people, like, wait a minute, i would like to control my message. there is some sense of pushing back against it? right. i totally agree, but i ll flip the coin and remind everybody around the table, back in 2008 to control his own message. barack obama said, no. no i m not going to take matching funds, not going to take public funds, raise unlimited amounts of money, yes, so i can control my own message. ironically, john mccain is the one who campaigned finance reform who said, yes, i am going to take public funds, yes, i had take control of my message, but did he really? we haven t talked about barack obama, i m saying that from a historical standpoint, he kind of raised the roof by saying i don t want public funds. let s be very clear. it s about to get hot, and
what i mean is what was reported by politico. $5 million raised from just four donors and their companies. combine that with the $41.7 million the investigative journalism organization estimates rhoades separate nonprofit has spent to influence the presidential race. beyond rove, the numbers all add up to a new reality for our two-party system. republicans and democrats are now each flanked by their own shadow parties. and when we come back, we ll show you why political money is still just in its infancy. ere tits utthem?thme mso t ben
noncoordinated. that is a joke. mitt romney spoke to the fund-raiser of his own super pac. let s go to the other side. president of the united states stood in the white house at a press conference and said he would allow super pacs to be formed. in fact, as members of his administration to go out and raise money for him. and the supreme court said i m not saying that. i m just saying the supreme court s ruling is now a lie. it says that uncoordinated, third-party contributions can t be limited. all these contributions are coordinated. this is america today. elections are being bought. our choice and 314 million americans are two guys saying almost the same thing. nothing about jobs, nothing about trade, nothing about our future. a disgrace. nothing to disagree with that. however, at some point you say