Donors Unchained - Quid Pro Quo

  • Aired:  04/03/14
  •  | Views: 75,469

As Republicans grovel at the scooter-riding feet of super donor Sheldon Adelson, the Supreme Court seems unable to come up with examples of the corrupting influence of money. (5:09)

SO LET ME GET THAT STRAIGHT.

JUSTICE ALITO DOESN'T SEE HOWMONEY CORRUPTS POLITICS UNLESS

YOU CAN DRAW A STRAIGHT LINEFROM I AM GIVING YOU THIS MONEY

TO DO THIS THING FOR ME.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FIND JUSTICEALITO A BROADER NONLITERAL QUID

QUO PRO LIKE AN HISTORICALEXAMPLE OF THE CORRUPTING

INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN POLITICS.

WHAT IF WE REACHED BACK INHISTORY TO LIKE THIS WEEKEND.

>> THE REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS AREHEADING WEST TO LAS VEGAS.

THEY ARE SPEAKING AT THE SPRINGMEETING OF REPUBLICAN JEWISH

COALITION BUT MORE IMPORTANTTHEIR PRIVATE TALKS WITH ONE

MAN, REPUBLICAN SUPERDONOR SHELDON ADELSON.

>> Jon: I WOULD RESPECTFULLYLIKE TO APPROACH THE BENCH AND

REMIND THE COURT THAT WHEN THEMEDIA REFERS TO SHELDON ADELSON

AS A SUPER DONOR THEY ARE NOTTALKING SPERM.

I HOPE.

A PACK OF REPUBLICANPRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS JUST FLEW

ALL THE WAY TO LAS VEGAS JUST TOKISS THE SCOOTER RIDING ASS OF

ONE 80-YEAR-OLDBILLIONAIRE.

DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHINGTHOUGH RIGHT.

I MEAN PEOPLE ON FEAR FACTORSPEED EAT A PLATE OF BULL

TESTICLES FOR $50,000.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THE TWO ARECONNECTED.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT MONEYCHANGES THEIR BEHAVIOR.

>> LATER ACCORDING TONBC NEWS CHRISTIE DID APOLOGIZETO ADELSON.

>> HE ENDED UP HAVING TOAPOLOGIZE FOR REFERRING THE WEST

BANK AS QUOTE OCCUPIEDTERRITORY.

>> Jon: STILL DON'T THINKMONEY HAS A MORE

GENERL CORRUPTING INFLUENCEON POLITICS? CAUSE I CAN TELL

YOU THIS MY FAMILYIS FULL OF 80-YEAR-OLD JEWS WHO

WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO TELLPOLITICIANS WHAT WORDS THEY CAN

AND CANNOT USE TO DESCRIBEISRAEL BUT AS OF THIS TAPING NO

PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS HAVE FLOWNTO THEIR HOUSE TO SOLICIT THAT

OPINION.

OBVIOUSLY WE TAPE AT 6:00, THESHOW IS ON AT 11:00, THINGS

COULD CHANGE BETWEENTHAT TIME. THERE MAY

BE A PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULSCONFERENCE AT MY AUNT DORIS'S

HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

IF SO OBVIOUSLY MONDAY'S SHOWWILL BE A FULL APOLOGY.

IN WHO'S DELUSIONAL MIND ISDEMOCRACY MADE BETTER BY LETTING

WEALTHIER PEOPLE CONTROL MORE OFIT?

>> I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEPOLITICAL LEFT DOESN'T LIKE

DECISIONS LIKE CITIZENS UNITEDAND McCUTCHEON BECAUSE THEY

EXPAND THE PLAYING FIELD.

THEY ENABLE MORE CITIZENS TO BEINVOLVED, MORE CITIZENS

TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CANDIDATESAND CAUSES THEY BELIEVE IN.

THAT'S GOOD FOR AMERICA.

>> Jon: (bleep).

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]I CAN'T EVEN DO THE TURTLE

VOICE.

I WON'T EVEN -- HOW THE(bleep) DOES THIS DECISION

ENABLE MORE CITIZENS TOCONTRIBUTE?

ACCORDING TO THE AP IN 2012, 646INDIVIDUALS BUMPED UP AGAINST

THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITTHAT THIS CASE STRUCK DOWN.

MCCUTCHEON DOESN'T GET MOREPEOPLE INVOLVED.

IT LETS THOSE 646 INDIVIDUALSGET THEMSELVES MORE INVOLVED.

HOW DID THE SUPREME COURT HANDLEVOTER I.D. LAWS?

>> THEY SAID STATES CAN REQUIREA VOTER I.D. AT THE POLLS TO

PREVENT VOTER FRAUD.

>> Jon: THE COURT CONVENIENTLYIGNORES THE REAL EFFECTS OF

DONOR LOBBYIST INDUSTRIALCOMPLEX UNDER THE GUISE OF

MAKING OUR DEMOCRACY MOREINCLUSIVE YET THEY ARE

PERFECTLY OKAY WITH VOTERI.D. LAWS UNDER THE GUISE OF

PROTECTING US MOSTLY NONEXISTENTVOTER IN PERSON VOTER FRAUD.

ACTUALLY MAKES OUR DEMOCRACYLESS INCLUSIVE.

CORRUPTION THAT ACTUALLYHAPPENS, I DON'T SEE IT.

VOTER FRAUD THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN?

HM?

[LAUGHTER]JUSTICE IS BLIND BUT IN ONLY ONE

EYE.

[ LAUGHTER ]SO MONEY DOESN'T CORRUPT OUR

SYSTEM.

LAST YEAR THEY STRUCK DOWN PARTSOF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

RACISM DOESN'T APPARENTLYCORRUPT OUR SYSTEM ANYMORE

BECAUSE THESE JUSTICES STRUCKDOWN SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT

PARTS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

SO WHAT IF THE VIEW OF THESEJUSTICES HAS A CORRUPTING

INFLUENCE ON OUR DEMOCRATICPROCESS?

>> DO YOU THINK THAT THE RULESWILL CHANGE IN ALLOWING

TELEVISION CAMERAS IN THE COURT?

>> NOT A CHANCE BECAUSE WE DON'TWANT TO BECOME ENTERTAINMENT.

>> I THINK THERE'S SOMETHINGSICK ABOUT MAKING ENTERTAINMENT

OUT OF REAL PEOPLE'S LEGALPROBLEMS.

>> THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT THEIMPACT ON TELEVISION ON THE

FUNCTIONING OF THE INSTITUTION,BOTH THE CIVIL TRIAL AND THE

SUPREME COURT ARGUMENT.

ALL OF THE JUSTICES VIEWTHEMSELVES AS TRUSTEES OF THE AN

EXTREMELY VALUABLE INSTITUTION.

>> Jon: TELEVISED SUPREMECOURT HEARINGS, APPARENTLY THE

ONE THING SO CORROSIVETO THE PROCESS THAT IT CAN NEVER

BE ALLOWED TO EXERT ITS UNHOLYINFLUENCE

UPON OUR SACRED DEMOCRATICINSTITUTION IS TRANSPARENCY.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

Loading...