Donors Unchained

  • Aired:  04/03/14
  •  | Views: 222,690

The Supreme Court does away with yet another limit on campaign funding, finally ridding America of the corrosive influence of not enough money in politics. (5:44)

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]>> Jon: WELCOME TO "THE DAILY

SHOW."

MY NAME IS JON STEWART.

MAN, GOOD SHOW TONIGHT.

OUR GUEST LEGENDARY BRAZILLANFOOTBALLER PELE.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]I'LL ASK HIM HOW HE FEELS ABOUT

ACHIEVING HIS LIFE'SGOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAALS!

[LAUGHTER]BUT FIRST BIG CAMPAIGN FINANCE

DECISION OUT OF THE NATION'SHIGHEST COURT.

>> BREAKING NEWS FROM THESUPREME COURT.

MAJOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONCASE.

>> THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BYALABAMA BUSINESSMAN SHAUN

MCCUTCHEON WHO ARGUES HESHOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT

AS MANY CANDIDATES AS HEWANTS IN AN ELECTION CYCLE.

>> Jon: WHO IS STOPPING YOU?

I MEAN IT'S YOUR LAWN, RIGHT?

I MEAN --[LAUGHTER]

WAIT A MINUTE, YOU DON'T MEANSUPPORT LIKE SUPPORT, YOU MEAN

SUPPORT LIKE SUPPORT.

>> I THINK THIS IS A FUNDAMENTALFREE SPEECH ISSUE ABOUT YOUR

RIGHT TO SPEND YOUR MONEY ON ASMANY CANDIDATES AS YOU CHOOSE.

>> Jon: RIGHT, RIGHT.

I'M SORRY IT'S THE WHOLE MONEYEQUALS SPEECH AS A WAY TO

FURTHER AMPLIFY BIG DONOR'SINFLUENCE ON POLITICS.

YOU KNOW, BECAUSE FOR SOMEREASON MONEY EQUALING MONEY

WASN'T GETTING IT DONE.

[ LAUGHTER ]>> THE COURT LEFT IN TACT HOW

MUCH ANY PERSON CAN GIVE TO ASINGLE FEDERAL CANDIDATE BUT IT

DID AWAY WITH A LIMIT ON HOWMUCH ANYBODY CAN GIVE TO ALL

CANDIDATES PUT TOGETHER.

[ LAUGHTER ]>> Jon: VICTORY.

FINALLY WE'RE RID OF THECOROSIVE

INFLUENCE OF NOT ENOUGH MONEY INPOLITICS.

>> BASICALLY IT GIVES PEOPLE WHOHAVE A LOT OF MONEY AT THEIR

DISPOSAL THE CHANCETO SPREAD THEIR INFLUENCE EVEN

MORE WIDELY. IF YOU HAVE $1MILLION THINK OF HOW MANY

CHUNKS OF $5200 THAT MAKES.

>> YOU CAN WRITE A LOT OFCHECKS.

>> Jon: YEP. LOTS AND LOTS OF

$5200 CHECKS.

THE LAST GREAT HOPE OFPRESERVING OUR DEMOCRACY FROM

THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OFMONEY IS CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME.

[LAUGHTER]ALL RIGHT, WHAT RATIONALE --

[ APPLAUSE ]-- WHAT RATIONALE DID THE COURT

USE TO JUSTIFY THIS 5 TO 4 SPLITDECISION.

LET'S HEAR SOME DISSENT FROMLIBERAL JUSTICE KAGAN.

>> IF YOU TAKE OFF THEAGGREGATE LIMITS PEOPLE WILL

BE ALLOWED, YOU PUT TOGETHER THENATIONAL COMMITTEES

AND STATE COMMITTEES AND ALL THECANDIDATES IN THE HOUSE

AND THE SENATE IT COMES TOOVER $3.5 MILLION.

>> Jon: I AM SORRY.

THE VISUAL -- THE SUPREME COURTDOESN'T ALLOW CAMERAS INTO THE

SUPREME COURT.

I ASSUME TO PROTECT THE JUDGE'SPRIVACY FROM THOSE REVENGE

UP-ROBE PORN SITES.

[LAUGHTER]BUT WHAT YOU SAW THERE WE HAD

OUR DAILY SHOW COURT SKETCHARTIST AT THE COURT TO CAPTURE

THE ARGUMENTS.

THAT'S WHERE THOSE DRAWINGS COMEFROM.

HERE IS THE CONSERVATIVEREBUTTAL.

FIRST SCALIA SPEAKS FROM THEBENCH IN HIS HOT TUB FULL OF

MONEY.

GO.

>> JUST TO PUT THAT INPERSPECTIVE, HOW MUCH MONEY IS

SPENT BY POLITICAL PARTIES ANDPACS IN ALL ELECTIONS THROUGHOUT

THE COUNTRY?

WHEN YOU ADD ALL THAT UP I DON'TTHINK $3.5 MILLION IS A HECK OF

A LOT OF MONEY.

>> Jon: ANTONIN SCALIA'SARGUMENT THE STRICT

CONSTRUCTIONIST JUSTICE, HISARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE SURE

$3.5 MILLION SOUNDS LIKE A DONORIS MAKING IT RAIN UNTIL YOU

COMPARE THAT TO THE MONSOONSEASON OF MONEY THAT WE

UNLEASHED IN OUR PREVIOUSCITIZENS UNITED DECISION

ALLOWING CORPORATIONSAND UNIONS TO DONATE TO

SUPER PACS. I BELIEVETHE FIGURE THERE THE

LIMIT WAS WHATEVER THE (bleep)YOU WANT.

[ LAUGHTER ]YOU MAY THINK EVEN THOUGH THERE

ARE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INPOLITICS, SURELY MILLIONS CAN

STILL HAVE SOME CORRUPTINGEFFECT, NO?

AND AREN'T WE, BY ATTEMPTING TOLIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS, JUST TRYING

TO LIMIT THE CORRUPTINGINFLUENCE OF MONEY OR AT LEAST

THE APPEARANCE OF THE CORRUPTINGINFLUENCE OF MONEY.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THATBECAUSE IT TURNS OUT YOU ARE

(bleep) WRONG. [ LAUGHTER ]

BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THISSUPREME COURT, THE ONLY KIND

OF CORRUPTION THAT MATTERSIS THE NARROWEST POSSIBLE

THOMAS NAST-LIKE MONOCLE TOPHATTED MAN HANDS A BAG OF MONEY

LABELED MONEY FOR BRIBE

TO A LITERAL FAT CAT WHILE THEAMERICAN PUBLIC STANDS BEHIND

THEM WEARING A BARREL KNOWN ASQUID PRO QUO CORRUPTION.

>> UNLESS THE MONEY ISTRANSFERRED.

YOU HAVE TO GET IT FROM THEPERSON WHO WANTS TO CORRUPT TO

THE PERSON WHO IS GOING TO BECORRUPTED.

UNLESS THE MONEY CAN MAKE ITFROM A TO B I DON'T SEE WHERE

THE QUID PRO QUO ARGUMENT IS.

>> Jon: IS HE (bleep) THAT BAG?

NO WONDER THEY DON'T WANTCAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM.

Loading...