that case was that congress had compiled a very extentendsive rd about the corporations and unions, generally and the political process and what the congress had found was that these corporations and unions had a kind of access to congressmen, had a kind of influence over congressmen, that changed outcomes. that was a corrupting influence, on congress. and, that was what the many, many, many thousand page record that was created before congress enacted this mccain-feingold bill, revealed, and that is what we tried to argue to the court. i understand the argument. but, the statute banning political speech that was challenged in citizens united also applied to small s-chapter corporations that might have only one shareholder. there are more than 4.5 million
supporters have been trying to say she dheecontinued the polic she didn t institute, but the truth is what happened while she was dean is the third circuit court in philadelphia, federal appeals court struck down the solomon amendment and as soon as they did it. she at harvard in the 1st circuit, not bound by the third circuit decision saying you no longer have to follow the solomon amendment she nantly reverted back to an old policy that essentially hurt the military that didn t allow them full access and sessions said you didn t have to follow the 3rd circuit decision and you were in the 1st decision and he say it is going to the supreme court and she said, yes, when they said you better let the military back on, if you want the money, she did it. let me ask you, we knew all along it would be a hot button topic we d hear discussed and we are waiting for orrin hatch, coming up, and what do you think
and she had such a problem and she worked for him and wanted to kick the military off of her campus recruiting office and she said they had equal access through this veterans and recruiting went up during my tenure and critics said thanks to the hustle of the veterans, that is why the numbers went up, she cannot take credit for that. martha: it is interesting, and, he was narrowing it down to that, how do you feel about the military, when given the opportunity to work with them you gave them the run around, he said, and she said i revere the military and he said i m not sure, which i thought, he was and he said you treated them like second-class citizens and his point is, you gave them access and it wasn t equal access and that what is the solomon amendment, which was they re because colleges across the country were kicking the military off campus because of don t ask, don t tell and congress passed a law saying you allow them equal access for recruiting otherwise you don t get fed
students know that the military recruiters were going to be at harvard during that recruiting season and military recruiting went up that year, not down. so you re exactly right, that the supreme court did reject our amicas brief. again, we filed an amicas brief not attacking the constitutionality of the solomon amendment but instead saying that essentially the harvard policy complied with the solomon amendment, the supreme court rejected it 9-0, unanimously. but even before that the military said the law was still in effect, harvard had no right to get around it, and they should comply even before the supreme court issued a ruling, and they had to contact the university s counsel and the president, mr. larry summers, and mr. summers agreed that the military should have full and equal access before even the supreme court ruled. but after you had denied
equal access. isn t that right? senator sessions, we had gone back and done exactly what the department of defense had asked us to do prior to the time that the supreme court ruled. we had done it wait a minute. you asked them what they asked you to do after the third circuit ruled, you denied them access, they had to insist and demand that they have equal access, because the law was still in effect. you did not agree to that. you had reversed that policy and the president of the university overruled your decision, according to the internal dod documents. they say that president summers agreed to reverse the policy, the dean remains opposed. senator sessions, larry summers and i always worked cooperatively on this policy, i didn t ever do anything that he didn t know about and he never did