>>> by rheumatologists.
>>> today, the supreme court also issued a major decision on campaign finance , striking down a montana law that prevents corporations from spending unlimited money on state elections . in a 5-4 ruling, the high court majority wrote there can be no serious doubt that the 2010 citizens united decision applies. democratic leader nancy pelosi called the ruling quote, disappointing and wrote, today, the supreme court kept open the flood gates to uninhibited special interest spending in our campaigns and in our politics. heather, we have been talking a lot about the influence of money in this year's race and the fact that it is changing dramatically the lines of the race. what was your reaction when this decision was handed down?
>> it was really disappointing. it's disappointing actually institutionally for the supreme court , frankly. the majority of americans now according to a new poll believe that the court is catering too much to corporate interests over the freedoms and rights of ordinary americans and they're right. the chamber of commerce is about to have a perfect season at the supreme court . did it again today, where they basically were pushing for the montana law to be summarily reversed and it was. my organization demos had an amicus brief where we argued that it is really important for the court to look at the facts again. in montana , this was the important thing. montana said you know what, the supreme court said the law says that maybe corporate expenditures wouldn't be corrupting but we've got evidence that in montana , they are. so let us go ahead and rule on the facts. supreme court today said you know what, the facts don't matter, their ideology does. it's terrible.
>> also in the "new york times" today an editorial on sheldon addelson's money. they write one man cannot spend enough to ensure the election of an unpopular candidate but he can buy enough ads to push a candidate over the top in a close race like this year's. for such a man where there are no legal or moral limits to the purchase of influence, spending tens of millions is a pittance to elect republicans who promise to keep his billions intact. a strongly worded statement from the "times" not surprising given their position on super pacs. steve , there is always the question if mitt romney loses this election depending on if there are more sort of ad campaigns not sanctioned by the romney campaign that put the candidate in a difficult position, perhaps there will be a kumbaya come to jesus moment with bipartisan support around the idea that super pacs need some kind of reform. maybe?
>> there might be but i think the other end to keep in mind is not just the presidential race , it's the congressional races. my theory, this is the first time for everybody we have had a super pac presidential election but even if romney wins the super pac game big and can outspend obama because of that, obama can still win this election because there is so much saturation- free media coverage at the presidential level, so much about partisan cues, about the state of the economy, i think you can overcome it. when you get to races that do not have much media coverage , your average house race, especially your average house primary, you pour super pac money into there, it has a huge distorting effect. i can see obama overcoming romney 's spending and winning. statement, 25 seats for over, no. if you have a huge super pac advantage, that saves the house for republicans. that would kill momentum to change this.
>> if you're charles and david koch , better bang for your buck to invest in a congressional race, is it not?
>> yes and no. they want the white house pretty badly but have enough money it's no choice for them. they can spend it anywhere. campaign finance reform is like immigration. it takes two things to even have a chance to do. a really strong president with sway over the country and popular, and bipartisan partners. john mccain once upon a time was a bipartisan partner on immigration. he's not now. on campaign finance reform , he could still be, yet there's no mccain- obama talks as far as i know to say let's try to move some legislation to try to address this issue. i'd like to think that after the election whether there's scandals or not that it could be revisited legislatively but it's difficult to do without a powerful president, again, with partners on the other side.
>> and without popular, without a real popular traction. that's always been the problem for campaign finance reform , it's the thing everybody likes to complain about but doesn't have much significance for voters. that will get tested in addition to the things steve was talking about in this election. will there be so much revulession on the part of the public with the saturation coverage, how negative it is and how out of control things are, that people not rise up from their chairs but at least say we actually demand action because if that's not there it's never going to change.
>> thanks to john, heather, mark and steve . be sure to catch steve and his cohost today on the debut of "the cycle" at 3:00 p.m . eastern right here on msnbc. that's all for now. see you back here tomorrow at noon eastern, 9:00 a.m . pacific when i am joined by michael steele without a mustache, curt anderson , karen finney and ken fineberg. " andrea mitchell reports"