SCOTTSDALE, AZ -- Mitt Romney pledged to reform the nation's immigration laws in his first year as president while criticizing the Supreme Court's immigration decision on Monday in broad terms.

Romney told donors in Arizona that he would have preferred that their state have more discretion in enforcing its immigration laws following a ruling by the high court throwing out much of Arizona's tough immigration law.

"Now you probably heard today there was a Supreme Court decision relating to immigration and given the failure of the immigration policy in this country, I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less," Romney told some 200 donors seated in a hotel ballroom for his remarks. "And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws."

Throughout the primary campaign, Romney defended the immigration law here, which called for local law enforcement to check immigration documents for anyone who they suspected may be in the country illegally (among other provisions), as the right course for a state to take when the federal government has failed to address immigration.

The court invalidated much of the law except for one of its most controversial prongs: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of individuals whom they detain and suspect of being in the U.S. illegally.

Romney didn't address that provision directly, pivoting instead to accuse President Obama of a failure to lead on immigration and creating a "muddle" of the issue.

"The president promised in his campaign that in his first year he would take on immigration and solve our immigration challenges, put in place a long term program to care for those who want to come here legally to deal with illegal immigration, to deal with securing our borders," Romney said. "All these things he was going to in his first year he had a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate but he didn’t do it. Isn’t it time for the American people to ask him why?"

Romney has not remarked publicly on the Supreme Court case or immigration today, but in addressing the topic of reform with a group of donors here who collectively gave more than $2 million dollars to the campaign, Romney pledge to forgo stopgap measures and reform the U.S. immigration system within the first year of his administration.

"In my first year I will make sure we actually do take on immigration, we secure our border, we make sure that we grow legal immigration in a way that provides people here with skill and expertise that we want," Romney said. "This is an issue that has to be tackled."

Carolyn Kaster / AP

President Barack Obama speaks at Oyster River High School in Durham, N.H.

DURHAM, NH -- President Obama hammered away at his presumptive Republican challenger's business career, latching onto reports that Bain Capital had invested in companies that engaged in offshoring during Romney's time at the company's helm.

The president, speaking in a swing state where Romney owns a home, mocked the former Massachusetts governor's campaign for attempting to distinguish between "offshoring" and "outsourcing" in its explanation.

"Yesterday his advisers were asked about this, and they tried to clear this up by telling us there's actually a difference between outsourcing and offshoring. That's what they said. You cannot make this stuff up,” the president joked to a booing crowd. He continued, “What Governor Romney and his advisers don't seem to understand is this, if you're a worker whose job went overseas, you don't need somebody trying to explain to you the difference between outsourcing and offshoring.”

What went unmentioned during the president's appearance before 1,200 sweaty New Hampshireites at an un-air conditioned high school gym was the Supreme Court's decision today on the controversial Arizona immigration law.

Aside from a written statement this morning, the closest the president came to speaking about immigration was when he touted his plan to hold off on deporting illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children.

"You can decide whether or not it's time to stop denying citizenship to responsible young people just because they're the children of undocumented workers who have been growing up with our kids…and want to contribute to this country," he told the audience.

A campaign official said to not expect any more reaction from the president on the Supreme Court ruling other than this morning's paper statement.

In addition to its ruling on Arizona's immigration law, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to revisit its controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, which permits corporations and labor unions to freely make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

What's more, in a 5-4 vote, "the majority summarily reversed a decision of the Montana Supreme Court that had refused to follow the Citizens United decision," the New York Times says.

The case involved Montana's Corrupt Practices Act. It requires corporations in the state to form what are essentially political action committees (PACs) and to spend only money that was given voluntarily by employees and shareholders. When the law was challenged as contrary to the Citizens United decision, the Montana Supreme Court upheld it as justified by the state's long history of political corruption. Besides, the state court said, the law doesn't run counter to Citizens United because corporations in Montana can still express their political views through the voluntary PAC-type funds. State regulations, the court said, are far simpler than federal campaign funding rules, imposing no real burden on corporate expression.

Updated 12:35 p.m. -- Democrats and Republicans each found something to cheer in the Supreme Court's ruling Monday on Arizona's controversial immigration law, reflecting the delicate politics surrounding immigration and the court's own mixed decision.

Each party found something to like and dislike in the Supreme Court's opinion, which struck down most components of the Arizona law but left in place one of its most controversial provisions: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of anyone they detain who's reasonably suspected of being in the United States illegally.

President Obama said he was "pleased" the court had struck down key provisions of the law, while his likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, suggested the decision represented a rebuke of the president.

"What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system -– it’s part of the problem," Obama said. "At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally."

Romney, meanwhile, emphasized what he said were the president's own struggles to curb illegal immigration.

"Today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy," presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney said in a written statement.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

People protest against President Obama's health care reform in front of U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 25.

But Romney didn't address the components of the law that were thrown out or, alternatively, upheld by the court.

"I believe that each state has the duty -- and the right -- to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities," he said.

Both Obama and Romney's responses were emblematic of the mixed reactions prompted by the decision across the political spectrum.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said the decision marked a vindication of the Obama administration's initial decision to challenge the Arizona law. Critics in the Democratic Party said that the law, including the prong that the Supreme Court upheld, would open the door to racial profiling.

"This is as strong a repudiation of the Arizona law as one could expect given that the law has not been implemented yet," said New York Sen. Charles Schumer (D). "Three linchpins of the Arizona law were struck down by a convincing majority of the Court as clearly violating federal law, and a fourth is on thin legal ice."

But Republicans found just as much to cheer in the court's ruling.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who first championed the law, called the decision "a victory for the rule of law."

While many elements of the law were struck down, the court upheld what Brewer called the "heart" of the law -- a requirement that authorities check the immigration status of anyone whom they suspect of being in the United States illegally.

The state's two Republican senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, also cheered the court for appearing to validate the status-check portion of the Arizona law.

The president will participate a series of public events set Monday in New England; as a matter of coincidence, Romney is in Arizona today to attend fundraisers.

The issue of immigration has assumed broader political significance in the 2012 campaign, following the president's announcement earlier this month that his administration would cease deporting illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and would instead allow them to apply for temporary work visas. This shift, which achieved many of the intentions of a Republican version of the DREAM Act, was poised to mobilize Latino voters behind the president, who had otherwise fallen short on delivering on his promise of comprehensive immigration reform.

The administration's announcement also threatened to exacerbate Romney's gap against Obama among Latino voters, a growing bloc that could prove especially decisive in swing states like Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and beyond. An early May oversample of Latino voters in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 22 percent of Latinos had a positive opinion of the GOP, versus 50 percent who expressed a negative impression of the Republican Party.

Romney responded to the new immigration policy by promising to supersede it with his own "long-term" plan on immigration. But he hasn't specified how his plan would work, or what it would differ in practical terms from the Obama plan.

The former Massachusetts governor has wrestled with immigration as an issue writ large, but has also struggled with positioning himself on the Arizona law.

Romney called the Arizona law a "model" at a debate this February, though his campaign insisted Romney only meant that in terms of some of the employment parts of the law (which the Supreme Court threw out on Monday). The Romney campaign was also forced to distance itself from Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), one of the principal authors of the Arizona law and another tough immigration law in Alabama.

But Romney also said at the same debate that "the right course for America is to drop these lawsuits against Arizona and other states" in addition to more aggressive enforcement of immigration laws.

Romney had used immigration to pummel some of his opponents in the Republican primary from the right, making his pivot toward the general election even more difficult.

The panel breaks down who's really in the running for Mitt Romney's VP nod and how much we really know about when it will all happen.

Updated at 4:50 pm ET In a split decision, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld one part of a tough Arizona immigration law, but struck down other sections.

The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Text of the decision (PDF)

The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

• One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
• One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
• And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.

"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration" while the federal government tries to enforce immigration law, but the state "may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion.

The U.S Supreme Court annoucines decisions on June 25.

The court said that there are several ways for state officials to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, such as by responding to federal requests for information about when a particular non-citizen will be released from state custody.

"But the unilateral state action" to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants "goes far beyond these measures, defeating any need for real cooperation" between the state and the federal government.

Monday's decision is only a prelude to further litgation over what now remains of the Arionza statute.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

Members of the media gather June 25 for a stakeout in front of U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.

NBC’s Pete Williams reported that “there are other lawsuits against this law. There are several civil liberties groups suing in Arizona, claiming that this law is racial profiling, and those cases have yet to work their way through the courts.”

Monday's decision was a partial victory for President Obama who had criticized the Arizona law, saying it “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” 

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said Monday, "I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less. And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws."

He added that immigration policy has "become a muddle. But it didn’t have to be this way. The president promised in his campaign that in his first year he would take on immigration ... put in place a long term program to care for those who want to come here legally, to deal with illegal immigration, to deal with securing our borders. All these things he was going to in his first year he had a Democrat house and a Democrat senate but he didn’t do it. And because he didn’t act, states and localities have tried to act and now the courts trying to get into it and sort things out and it’s a muddle"

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that "I remain concerned about the impact" of the part of the law that requires police to attempt  to check the immigration status of people they stop when they have reason to suspect that the person is in the United States unlawfully.

Holder said the Justice Department "will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination.  We will closely monitor the impact of S.B. 1070 to ensure compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws, including ensuring that law enforcement agencies and others do not implement the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against the Latino or any other community."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said flatly that Monday's ruling was a defeat for those who seek stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

Smith said the decision "limits the ability of states to protect their citizens and communities from illegal immigrants. It is the federal government’s job to enforce our immigration laws, but President Obama has willfully neglected this responsibility. This dereliction of duty has left states to address the crime, job loss, and other costs of illegal immigration."

He added, “Unfortunately, under this Administration, today’s ruling essentially puts an end to immigration enforcement since the states no longer can step in and fill the void created by the Obama administration."

The Justice Department had moved quickly in 2010 to block enforcement of the law. The administration had argued that the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the federal government, not the states, and that where the federal government has pre-empted state action, no state can intrude on that federal turf.

The majority on Monday essentially agreed with that argument.

In the oral argument before the high court on April 25, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Arizona did not have the power to exclude or remove a person who is in the state illegally.

Although some critics of the law have contended that it would inevitably lead to targeting of Latinos simply because of appearance, speaking Spanish, or having a Spanish accent, Verrilli told the justices on April 25 “We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case.”

Since enforcement of the law had been blocked by a federal judge soon after its enactment, the Obama administration did not present a record to the Supreme Court of the law leading to incidents of ethnic profiling of Latinos in the state.

Joining Kennedy's majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part.

Justice Elena Kagan, who served as Obama’s solicitor general, had recused herself from the Arizona case.

The high court’s decision comes just days after Obama announced a new administration policy of not deporting illegal immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States, or were brought to the United States before reaching age 16, who are in school, or have graduated from high school, gotten a general education certificate, or are military veterans. The illegal immigrants covered by the new administration policy will be permitted to apply for authorization to work legally in the United States. 

Updated at 2:25 pm ET The Supreme Court Monday struck down mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without parole for convicted murderers who were only 14 years old when they committed their crimes.

There are approximately 80 people nationwide who are serving such sentences for murders they committed when they were fourteen years old or younger.

The justices ruled that imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year old convicted of homicide violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

The decision arose out of two cases, one from Arkansas and one from Alabama.

In each case, a 14-year-old offender was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

“State law mandated that each juvenile die in prison even if a judge or jury would have thought that his youth and its attendant characteristics, along with the nature of his crime, made a lesser sentence (for example, life with the possibility of parole) more appropriate,” noted Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the majority opinion for the court.

Kagan said that “a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles.”

Requiring all children convicted of homicide to receive life in prison without possibility of parole, “regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes,” violates the principle of proportionality, and conflicts with the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, Kagan said.

Monday’s ruling was not a surprise since the high court had already decided in cases in 2005 and 2010 that that the Eighth Amendment bars capital punishment for children and that it also prohibits a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a child who committed a non-homicide offense.

In the Alabama case Evan Miller, 14 years old, killed an adult neighbor, Cole Cannon, while Miller, Cannon and another boy Colby Smith, were smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol. Miller beat Cannon with a baseball bat and said “I am God, I’ve come to take your life.”

Miller and Smith then set Cannon’s trailer on fire to cover up their crime. After Cannon died from his injuries and smoke inhalation, Alabama charged Miller as an adult with murder in the course of arson.

Smith pleaded to a lesser offense and provided testimony that helped convict Miller.

“No one can doubt that he and Smith committed a vicious murder,” Kagan said. “But they did it when high on drugs and alcohol consumed with the adult victim. And if ever a pathological background might have contributed to a 14-year-old’s commission of a crime, it is here.”

She said Miller’s stepfather had abused him and “his alcoholic and drug-addicted mother neglected him; he had been in and out of foster care as a result” and had tried to kill himself four times.

In the accompanying case from Arkansas, a boy named Kuntrell Jackson, 14 years old, along with two other boys decided to rob a video store. In the course of that robbery, one of the other boys shot and killed the store clerk. Jackson was unarmed when the murder took place but was charged as an accessory.

Kagan’s opinion was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

In his dissent, Roberts wrote that “the only stopping point for the Court’s analysis would be never permitting juvenile offenders to be tried as adults.”

He also said that in recent years more and more states had moved toward requiring that “the murderer, his age notwithstanding, be imprisoned for the remainder of his life. Members of this Court may disagree with that choice.  Perhaps science and policy suggest society should show greater mercy to young killers, giving them a greater chance to reform themselves at the risk that they will kill again. But that is not our decision to make.”

Updated at 2:00 pm ET The Supreme Court overturned Monday a Montana state law which banned independent political spending by corporations.

By reversing a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court which had upheld the 1912 law, the high court re-affirmed its own 2010 Citizens United decision which held that a ban on corporate independent political spending was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Monday’s ruling dashed the hopes of campaign finance reformers who wanted the justices to reconsider Citizens United.

“There can be no serious doubt” that the Citizens United decision applies to the Montana state law, the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion.

Dissenting from that reversal of the Montana court were four justices: Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

“Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so,” Breyer wrote for the dissenters.

Reaction from Democrats to Monday’s ruling was a mixture of frustration and anger.

Rep. Ted Deutch, D- Fla., who has proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit spending by corporations in elections, said that the high court had "doubled down on the dangerous assertion made in Citizens United that corporations are people with a constitutional right to spend unchecked amounts of money influencing our elections. By striking down Montana's long-held ban on corporate campaign contributions, this radical decision undermines good government laws nationwide and further jeopardizes century-old federal law banning direct corporate giving to campaigns."

But the legislative path to enactment of a constitutional amendment is extremely arduous; in the short term there seems no chance for legislation to counter the Supreme Court’s rulings in Citizens United and in Monday’s Montana case.

Summary reversal of the Montana court – which is what the Supreme Court did on Monday -- is the quickest and most emphatic way for the justices to tell a lower court that it got something wrong (i.e., that it had ignored or misinterpreted a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court).

In its ruling in 2011, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the state’s right to impose its own ban on independent spending by corporations. The Montana court said, “Unlike Citizens United, this case concerns Montana law, Montana elections and it arises from Montana history.”

The Montana court also said, “Issues of corporate influence, sparse population, dependence upon agriculture and extractive resource development, location as a transportation corridor, and low campaign costs make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government. Clearly Montana has unique and compelling interests to protect through preservation of this statute."

But the corporations challenging the Montana law said that state laws which ban independent political spending by corporations are in conflict with the Citizens United decision and must be struck down

The challengers said in their petition to the justices: “The Montana Supreme Court simply disagreed with the holdings of Citizens United, which it felt justified in disregarding…But only this Court can overturn its own precedent ….”

As the U.S. Supreme Court wraps up its term, anticipation mounts for a decision on the legal showdown over President Obama's health care law. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.

All eyes on SCOTUS: We could get a health-care decision (and immigration one, too) as early as today and as late as Thursday… How crazy a month -- and yet how stable -- it’s been…. Bain gets more scrutiny, and how does Romney fix it?... Wrapping up Romney’s weekend getaway in Utah… And Obama stumps in New Hampshire at 2:00 pm ET, while Romney raises money in Scottsdale, AZ.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, DC, June 18, 2012. The highest court in the US is set to rule within days on the constitutionality of US President Barack Obama's health care reforms.

*** All eyes on SCOTUS: As early as today and as late as Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue its ruling on the federal health-care law. And there are essentially three outcomes: 1) everything gets upheld, 2) everything gets struck down, or 3) something in between. But the politics -- especially as it relates to November -- aren’t as clear cut. But our guess is that a full uphold or a full repeal energizes the winning side and knocks the losers for an unexpected loop. (Then again, you could argue that the losing side gets to fire up its base, but that is still some bitter lemonade out of those lemons.) What is clear is that news organizations have emptied their health-care files. Over the weekend, the New York Times wrote whether the health-care law’s supporters ignored concerns about its constitutionality, and it also noted how the Obama White House is bracing for the decision, even an unfavorable one. And the Washington Post wondered if the White House made some political and legal miscalculations with the Supreme Court case. All three articles suggested the Conventional Wisdom that the Supreme Court could very well overturn the law. But no one knows how the court will rule.

*** Immigration decision is coming, too: Don’t forget: We’ll also get the court’s decision on Arizona’s immigration law this week. By the way, if you are a Republican strategist involved in a competitive election, you are hoping the Arizona decision gets released WITH health care. If it’s immigration today and health care on Thursday, then the GOP has to deal with another three days of the immigration issue in the news, and we’ve yet to see how any day that has immigration in the news is a good one for Republicans in November.

*** One crazy month: So when you step back and think about it, June has been a crazy month. It started with the monthly jobs report showing that just 69,000 jobs were created in May; then came the drumbeat of bad and uncertain news on the economy, both domestically and in Europe; then there was Wisconsin; then President Obama’s immigration announcement; and now we’re about to get the big SCOTUS health-care ruling (as well as the immigration one). Yet despite it all, the Obama-Romney race has remained incredibly stable. Look no farther than the recent Pew poll and AP national poll showing Obama narrowly leading Romney (50%-46% and 47%-44%, respectively) -- which is essentially where this race was after the former Massachusetts governor became the presumptive GOP nominee back in April. What explains this stability, even if much of the media perception has been that Romney has the momentum while Obama is struggling? For starters, you could argue that given this nation’s political polarization, this tight race has always been locked in and perhaps is even more locked in than anyone appreciates. Then there’s the “demographics is destiny” argument that feeds the polarization; and finally, don’t overlook the Obama campaign’s heavy anti-Romney TV blitz have contributed to the stability. Bottom line: It’s probably a little of all three.

*** We’re still in the 2^nd quarter: Regardless, it’s important to note that we haven’t reached halftime in this general election contest. We always knew there would be FOUR big moments in this race after Romney became the presumptive nominee, outside any unforeseen event: 1) the SCOTUS health-care decision, 2) the VP selection, 3) the convention speeches, and 4) the debates. And we’re only about to cross off No. 1 on this list. We still have a long way to go…

*** Bain gets more scrutiny: After the Washington Post reported on Friday that Bain Capital, under Mitt Romney’s leadership, invested in firms that outsourced jobs to China and India, other news organizations piled on Bain. Over the weekend, the New York Times wrote that even when Bain-controlled companies filed for bankruptcy and shed jobs, Bain and its executives still made money. “Bain structured deals so that it was difficult for the firm and its executives to ever really lose, even if practically everyone else involved with the company that Bain owned did, including its employees, creditors and even, at times, investors in Bain’s funds.” Also, the Boston Globe noted how Romney and Bain once partnered with famed junk-bond king Michael Milken in a leveraged buyout. “It showed how he pivoted from being a relatively cautious investor to risking his reputation for a big payoff. It is one that Romney has rarely, if ever, mentioned in his two bids for the presidency, perhaps because the Houston-based department store chain that Bain assembled later went into bankruptcy.” Finally, the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action is up with another TV ad hitting Romney on Bain. 

*** Romney has more of a Bain problem than the Acela Corridor realizes: Ever since the Obama campaign began its Bain hit, there has been near universal agreement among elites that the hits were either “not working,” or “unfair,” or both. But as we’ve said before and we’ll say again: The Bain attacks aren’t meant to sway folks in NY and DC, but folks in three crucial battleground states: Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. The whole point of this campaign by the Obama folks is to paint Romney as an out-of-touch Wall Street CEO or worse, one of the Bobs from “Office Space. And while the Romney campaign has comforted itself with the criticism of the Obama attacks by other Democrats (Booker, Rendell etc.), the campaign has done little to fix the larger image issue. So far, the Romney campaign has made this argument: Any attack on Bain is an attack on America’s free enterprise system. But how does it explain that Bain and its partners often made money, even if the firms they took over went belly up? And how do they now explain this Milken association? Does it keep using the “free enterprise” line? Or does it need to do something else?

*** Romney’s weekend getaway: Here’s a thought exercise: Imagine if Obama had held a big retreat -- say in Santa Fe, NM -- with all of his big bundlers. The Hollywood types. The LGBT donors. The NBA stars. Would it have received more coverage than Romney’s retreat with his big bundlers in Utah over the weekend? Perhaps the most newsworthy part of the weekend: the attendance of the Super PAC-men. Not only was Karl Rove there (remember that he helped found American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS), but also spotted in the hotel lobby there was Restore Our Future’s Charlie Spies. Spies confirmed to NBC’s Garrett Haake that he was in the hotel lobby, but says he was not officially "attending" the confab, he was just there. Spies’ wife also works for the campaign. The Romney campaign issued this statement: "ROF staff were not invited, nor did they attend or participate in the retreat. As with members of the media, they may have been in public spaces, and the campaign did not control that. We are fully aware of the law and comply with it completely." This just shows you the absurdity of the campaign-finance laws right now. The campaigns and Super PACs can’t coordinate, but they can be in “public spaces” together; yes that’s the law. Remember, it’s the “letter” of the law that matters not the spirit.  

*** On the trail: Obama gives a speech in Durham, NH at 2:00 pm ET and later hits a fundraiser in Boston… Per guidance from the campaign, Obama “will offer Granite State voters the choice to break the stalemate between two economic visions on how to grow to the economy -- one that builds the economy from the middle class out, and the other from the top down.”… And Romney today raises money in Scottsdale, AZ.

Countdown to GOP convention: 63 days
Countdown to Dem convention: 70 days
Countdown to Election Day: 134 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

The Florida senator discusses immigration, health care, the 2012 campaign and his new book with NBC's David Gregory.

A Meet the Press roundtable of experts debates the politics of immigration, the Fast and Furious scandal and the search for Mitt Romney's running mate.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the leading voice in the Republican party on immigration policy, stressed the need for a long-term solution to our country's immigration issue and criticized President Obama's recent decision to stop deporting young people who entered the country illegally as children. 

Rubio panned the move as a "short term fix for a long term problem," and added that it "injects election year politics into an issue that will never be solved as long as it's a political one." He also argued that the current version of the DREAM Act which is supported by President Obama would "encourage illegal immigration in the future."

He continued to say that he will still pursue his vision for comprehensive immigration reform as a "responsive policy maker."

The issue of immigration is key in the 2012 race as Mitt Romney tries to make up ground with Hispanic voters, and some say that adding Rubio to the ticket might be able to bolster his support from Latinos. In May of last year, Rubio told David that "under no circumstances," would he be on the ticket in 2012.

This time around, however, Rubio joked "I thought you had told me you'd burned the tapes?" He then refused to comment more on the process, only saying that he's sure Mitt Romney will choose a credible number two.

Our roundtable also broke down the Fast & Furious controversy with chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa (R-CA). Issa said that he and ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) "promised to get the truth," but they "got a lie."

You can watch the entire program on our website including more from our political roundtable and their view on what Mitt Romney will be looking for in a Vice Presidential candidate. We were joined by Former Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM); POLITICO’s Senior Political Reporter Jonathan Martin; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.

On a softball field near the Capitol this week, a scrappy team of bipartisan women from the House and Senate – including four grandmothers – took on a far younger lineup of women from the congressional press corps to raise money for breast cancer research. The women of the press corps won 13 to 10, but not without fighting off a late-inning rally from the politicians. Watching from the sidelines: an 82-year-old retired high school coach, a woman who flew across country to root for one of her former students, California Congresswoman Laura Richardson.  A lot of the women on both teams played high school and college ball. So did UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who showed she had game in a basketball face-off among cabinet secretaries and WNBA players Thursday night. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius also had some moves.   

None of this would have happened before Title IX revolutionized women’s athletics, and a lot more. As President Obama (basketball coach to Sasha’s school team) points out today in his web address, “Title IX isn't just about sports. From addressing inequality in math and science education to preventing sexual assault on campus to fairly funding athletic programs, Title IX ensures equality for our young people in every aspect of their education. It's a springboard for success.”

There is perhaps no better example of what women could accomplish through sport and education than Pat Summitt, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House for her accomplishments. And we shouldn’t forget that Title IX helped young women force their way into math and science courses that, in many cases, they had routinely been discouraged from taking.

For me, it’s personal. When I was the program manager of my college radio station, women couldn’t do sports play-by-play. The barriers went well beyond athletics: after graduating, on assignment for a Philadelphia all-news radio station, I was once barred from the press room in the State Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa. No women allowed. Now, I look around our newsroom and see an incredible team of female executive and senior producers who have options that would have been inconceivable before Title IX. Appropriately, they take sports for granted. My senior producer, Michelle Perry, did crew for Berkeley. Our Senate producer, Libby Leist, was on the swim team in high school. And there is plenty of evidence that women who compete in sports perform better in other pursuits off the field.

For my generation, the imbalance was perhaps best symbolized by the careers of women like Billie Jean King. That’s why her defeat of Bobby Riggs, in the same era as the passage of Title IX, was such an empowering moment. Thanks to Title IX,  Billie Jean and other women athletes were able to break down barriers  for all the women who will be taking the field next month at the London Olympics. I’m going to be cheering them on, and thanking Billie Jean, Pat Summitt and all the others who pioneered the way.

Appealing to Hispanic voters, President Barack Obama on Friday defended his decision to lift the threat of deportation for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, saying it gave them an overdue "sense of hope." He challenged Republicans in Congress to join him finally on a big, broad fix of the U.S. immigration laws.

Obama tailored his re-election message of economic fairness and opportunity to his audience of Latino officials, addressing the group one day after Republican rival Mitt Romney did the same. Hispanic voters are a vital constituency in states that could swing the election, from Florida to Nevada to Virginia.

The president said the nation needs ideas and policies that build up the middle class and "our current immigration system doesn't reflect those values." The system punishes immigrants who play by the rules and drives away entrepreneurs who can get an education in America but cannot stay here legally, he said.

Obama spoke to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials near Orlando, his first speech to a Hispanic group since he decreed that many young illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children would be exempted from deportation and granted work permits valid for two years

"It was the right thing to do," Obama declared.

Romney has attacked Obama's new plan to ease deportation rules as little more than a "stopgap measure." The president sought to seize on that criticism from Romney and Republicans in Congress by putting the onus on them.

"For those who are saying Congress should be the one to fix this, absolutely," Obama said. "For those who say we should do this in a bipartisan fashion, absolutely. My door's been open for three-and-a-half years. They know where to find me." 

Slideshow: Obama's fourth year in office

Potential vice presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told the annual convention of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials that “both my head and my heart tell me that today perhaps we are as close as we’ve ever been to a critical turning point in the debate about immigration.”

He called for a balanced approach to reforming the process of legally immigrating to the United States to reduce the waiting time for those who have followed the established process for becoming legal permanent residents.

Edward Linsmier / Getty Images

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., addresses the audience at the 29th annual NALEO conference June 22, 2012 in Orlando, Florida.

But the Florida Republican said since joining the Senate in 2011 “I’ve come to realize … how truly complicated this issue has become.”

He said that there were those on both the Democratic and GOP sides who want the immigration issue to not get solved because then they can keep exploiting it for electoral gain.

“As long as this issue of immigration is a political ping-pong that each side uses to win elections and influence votes, I’m telling you it won’t get solved,” he said. Too many people “want it to stay unresolved; it’s easier to influence elections … .”

Rubio complained that when he first floated the idea of providing a way for younger illegal immigrants who’d been brought to United States by their parents to remain, “the reaction of many on the left was an immediate dismissal. I saw people on the left saying that I was proposing a new three-fifths compromise, harkening back of the days when a slave was only three-fifths of a person. I was accused of supporting apartheid.”

Related: Rubio: Obama immigration move hurts effort to pass long-term solution

But then he said when President Barack Obama ordered a very similar policy last week, suddenly Rubio’s critics say “it’s the greatest idea in the world.”

He added, “I don’t care who gets the credit … but it exposes the fact that this issue is all about politics for some people.”

He also got in a slam at Obama by saying, “I was tempted to come here and tell you 'Hey, he hasn’t been here (to the NALEO annual conference) in three years, what a coincidence: it's an election year … but that's not the direction I want to go with my speech. Because if I did, if that’s what I came here to talk to you about, then I would be doing the exact same thing that I just criticized.”

Explaining why simply allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States would create a problem of equity, Rubio said there were probably 50 million – many in Latin America – who are waiting to immigrate to the United States legally.

His Florida constituents often come to his Senate office and tell him “My mom has been waiting; my sister has been waiting for 15 years. They paid the fees they’ve waited their turn.”

Rubio asked, “What’s our message to them? ‘Come illegally; it is cheaper and quicker’? That’s not an answer either.”

He also criticized those who he said seem to think there is a right to immigrate illegally to the United States. 

“The truth is: there is no right to illegally immigrate to the United States. And when we talk about illegal immigration, it’s not about demanding rights; it’s about appealing to the compassion of the most compassionate nation in the history of the world.”

But he won some applause from his audience when he sounded empathetic for the illegal immigrants who come to the United States in search of a more prosperous life.

“These are people that are doing what virtually any of us would do if our children were hungry, if their countries were dangerous, if they had no hope for their future,” he said. “Who among us would not do whatever it took to feed our children and to provide for them a better future?”

NBC's Andrew Rafferty contributed to this story.

Is the proliferation of superPAC money and negative ads working against the best interests of both Mitt Romney and President Obama? Will 2012 actually end up being more of a "ground game" election bolstered by a "get-out-the-vote" effort? "Meet the Press" moderator David Gregory and the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson discuss.

Despite his announcement a week ago, Obama has his own immigration challenge when he addresses NALEO at 1:40 pm ET… Can he run up the score with Latinos?... Recapping Romney’s own speech: It was strong (given the high degree of difficulty), but it side-stepped a big question… Romney’s newest TV ads… The Bain story isn’t going away… Romney’s donor-maintenance event in Utah begins… Charlie Cook: Don’t bet on another wave election for House races… And “Meet the Press” has Rubio and Richardson.

Carolyn Kaster / AP

President Barack Obama speaks in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, June 21, 2012, in Washington, to call on Congress to stop interest rates on student loans from doubling on July 1.

*** Obama's own immigration challenge: Yesterday, we wrote about Mitt Romney's immigration challenge in advance of his speech Thursday to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) in Orlando, FL. And today, with his own address to the group at 1:40 pm ET, we look at President Obama's challenge, too. For starters, despite last week's big immigration announcement, Obama wasn't able to achieve comprehensive immigration reform when Democrats held a majority in 2009-2010. Romney hammered home this very point yesterday: “For two years, this president had huge majorities in the House and Senate… But he did nothing to advance a permanent fix for our broken immigration system." (Of course, the chief reason why was opposition from GOP senators, especially those who had supported reform in the past.) The other challenge for Obama is all the deportations that have taken place during his administration. As the Tampa Bay Times has written, “Obama has been tougher on deportations than any modern president — expelling nearly 1.5 million people so far. Many have been criminals, but the effort has also torn apart families and hurt some of the young people Obama now wants to help.”

*** And can he run up the score? But make no mistake: Obama is going to win the Latino vote, and he'll likely receive a much more enthusiastic response from the NALEO crowd than Romney did yesterday. But the questions for the president are: How much he can run up the score with this demographic group, and will they turn out? (Do Latinos go from representing 9% of all voters in '08 to 11% or 12% in '12? If so, that could be the difference between Obama winning and losing. And as was evident in the NBC/WSJ poll last month, their intensity is down.) And that's why it will be interesting to see how he responds to these shortcomings in his record. After his NALEO speech, Obama holds a campaign event in Tampa, FL at 4:15 pm ET.

*** Recapping Romney’s speech: As for Romney's own speech yesterday, it was pretty strong -- especially considering the high degree of difficulty (a polite but not enthusiastic crowd, issue terrain that's rocky for him). What's more, he put some meat on the bones of his immigration policy (for example, reallocate green cards to ensure that spouses and children of legal permanent residents get to stay with their families, grant green cards to those who get advanced degrees in the U.S). But where he wasn't strong was in answering what he would do to Obama's executive action to no longer deporting qualified young illegal immigrants. Bottom line: He really didn’t answer the question. "Some people have asked if I will let stand the president's executive action," he said. "The answer is that I will put in place my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the president's temporary measure." But what would he do BEFORE the legislation was passed? And what would he do if Congress DOESN'T PASS IT? There's a reason why both Obama and Bush have been unable to get this through -- it's very hard, especially when "amnesty" has become a four-letter word on the right. As if on cue, the Obama campaign has a new web video noting all the ways Romney has side-stepped questions about Obama’s immigration action.

*** New Latino polls: Ahead of Obama’s speech, there’s a new Latino Decicisions poll of Latinos in the swing states of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Virginia that was partially conducted after Obama’s immigration announcement last week. “In Florida, the poll found Obama leading Romney by a margin of 53% to 37%, a slight increase from a 50% to 40% lead Obama held over Romney in a January 2012 Latino Decisions/Univision News poll in Florida. In the five states combined Obama lead Romney 63% to 27%, however in southwestern battlegrounds of Arizona, Colorado and Nevada Obama performed even better.  In Arizona Obama received 74% to 18% for Romney, in Colorado he was favored by 70% to 22% and in Nevada 69% to 20%.  In Virginia, Obama lead 59% to 28% over Romney among Latino registered voters.”

Slideshow: As it happens: Obama's fourth year in office

Jewel Samad / AFP - Getty Images

The president's fourth year at the White House in pictures — follow along as it happens.

Launch slideshow

*** Romney’s newest TV ads: Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is up with TV ads targeted to individual battleground states (Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) about what he’d do in his first 100 days as president. Here’s the one from Iowa: “President Romney’s first 100 days -- what will they mean for Iowa?” the narrator asks. “Day One, President Romney moves to repeal Obamacare and attacks the deficit, starting with $20 billion in savings. By Day 100, President Romney is working toward a balanced budget, making sure the government lives within its means.” But these ads also raise some questions: How will he repeal the health-care law, if the Supreme Court doesn’t already do it for him? How will he work toward balancing the budget, especially with the tax cuts he wants to pursue (and the offsets he hasn’t yet identified)?

*** The Bain story isn’t going away: A day after the Obama campaign seized on a Bloomberg article noting that Romney officials had told Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) to stop touting positive economic news in his state, Chicago is pouncing on a new story: Bain Capital, under Romney’s direction, invested in firms that outsourced jobs to China and India. The Washington Post: “During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.” More: “Bain played several roles in helping these outsourcing companies, such as investing venture capital so they could grow and providing management and strategic business advice as they navigated this rapidly developing field.” Folks, this story is a reminder that the Bain story isn’t going away…

*** My Own Private Utah: NBC’s Garrett Haake reports on Romney’s big donor-maintenance weekend in Utah: “Romney's top aides and donors have begun to trickle in to the posh Deer Valley resort area, spreading out across several hotels.  Pollster Neil Newhouse, Romney consiglieres Bob White and former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and advisers Katie Gage, Ron Kaufman and Eric Fehrnstrom are all here. Finance Chairman Spencer Zwick arrived last night. On the donor/finance side -- Karl Rove is here, and Bill Bain has been spotted at one of the hotels housing the donor class.” As Haake mentioned yesterday, potential Romney VPs Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Rob Portman, and Bob McDonnell will also be in attendance.

*** Cook: Don’t bet on another wave election for the House: Turning to the outlook for this year’s House races, National Journal’s Charlie Cook doesn’t see a fourth-consecutive wave election -- at least so far. “[A] little more than four months out from the election, the tides seem about as neutral as they can be. Both parties have surprisingly comparable levels of exposure, largely because of redistricting. The relatively calm surface of this year’s waters belies a lot of offsetting tumult and change underneath. But for House Republicans, who hold a 25-seat majority, a status quo election producing minimal net change would be good news.” Cook concludes in his column, “Republicans would need to mess up pretty badly to lose their House majority in the near future.”

*** “Meet” has Rubio, Richardson: On “Meet the Press” this Sunday, NBC’s David Gregory interviews Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) and former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D).

Countdown to GOP convention: 66 days
Countdown to Dem convention: 73 days
Countdown to Election Day: 137 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Press Secretary Jay Carney felt the heat in Thursday’s White House press briefing as he addressed questions over President Obama’s decision to block subpoenaed Justice Department documents related to the Fast and Furious gun-walking operation.

Speaking with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell today, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) expressed concern over the Obama administration’s handling of immigration reform, claiming that President Obama’s executive action halting deportation of some young illegal immigrants makes it “harder to find a long-term solution to a long-term problem.” 

Rubio, in an interview on MSNBC’s "Andrea Mitchell Reports," acknowledged that Obama's surprise move last week made it harder politically to pass any sort of immigration reform on Capitol Hill. Among the proposals, Rubio had until Monday been promoting a narrower version of the Democrats' DREAM Act that would have provided essentially the same benefits to young illegal immigrants. 

That said, before Obama's announcement last Friday, Rubio had not yet drafted any legislation on this issue.

The Florida senator said he would “continue to formulate the idea,” but “the fact that it’s gotten all mixed up in this election year and now being used to attack Republicans has only made it harder.” Rubio's comments were in line with remarks Mitt Romney gave earlier in the day to a leading group of Latino elected officials in Florida, tying the need for immigration reforms to the lagging economy and prospects for future economic growth.

Rubio’s suggestion for finding a way forward? De-politicize the immigration debate, saying: “We have to elevate this issue. We have to say this is a humanitarian issue. We’re going to deal with this without it becoming a political ping-pong back and forth.” 

Ron Paul’s third campaign for president may not lead to the Texas Congressman being nominated at the Republican Convention in Tampa this August -- notwithstanding a lawsuit filed by supporters in attempt to make that happen -- but, from Maine to Alaska, the “Paul Revolution” has swept state Republican parties.

Out of the national spotlight, Paul activists have mastered obscure local party rules to win key positions of power at state conventions, infiltrating the Republican establishment across the country, including in the key swing states of Iowa and Nevada.

In Massachusetts, they even beat out many prominent pro-Mitt Romney supporters to win spots as Romney delegates. They are informally bound by party rules to vote for Romney still, but the open secret in both parties, is no one is really bound – one of the issues at the heart of the Paul supporters’ lawsuit against the national party.

Ben Margot / AP

Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, cheer as Paul speaks at the University of California at Berkeley, Calif.

Paul’s strategy has always been to motivate “the remnant” to gain influence by getting involved in party politics, and described how that would happen to a small group of reporters in Columbia, S.C., in mid-January.

“We don't win over the insiders by becoming like an insider,” Paul said. “We win the inside over by making the outsiders become more appropriate.”

But what Paul activists have done in many places is learn the rules of the insiders and use them against them.

After being described as “an outlier for the Republican Party,” Paul Wednesday morning on MSNBC, explained how supporters will achieve his long-term goal of bringing the GOP around to accepting his political philosophy.

“I want to work on the platform,” Paul said, “but we know platforms don't change people's attitudes. That's what we want to do -- get attention to changing the attitude, so that we, who are perceived as outliers, become the insiders. And that's what's happening. … We're winning state delegations, state chairmen and small offices, anywhere from city councils to county commissioners.”

Paul supporters are winning elections and becoming party insiders: chairmen, national committeemen, executive board members, elected officials, candidates and delegates.

- In Iowa, four of Paul’s former aides hold leadership positions at the state party, including chairman A.J. Spiker – who was Paul’s state co-chair. At least six members of the Iowa State Central Committee are Paul supporters.

- In Alaska, Republicans voted Russ Millette as the party’s new chairman and Debra Holle Brown as co-chair, both Paul supporters. Local reports call this a sea change in state politics, after “at least 12 years of the Alaska GOP being run by what those party newcomers call ‘establishment Republicans.’”

- In Nevada, Paul supporters won 13 of 14 new elected executive board spots at the Clark County GOP. Four years after having the lights turned out on them at the state convention in 2008, Paul supporters now hold positions at local and county GOP offices across the Silver State.

- In Minnesota, the state Republican Party endorsed Paul supporter and economics teacher Kurt Bills for the GOP Senate nomination. He will face incumbent Democrat Amy Klobuchar in November.

- And in Maine, 21-year-old Paul supporter Ashley Ryan was elected as the state’s new Republican national committeewoman. The Paul campaign claims she is likely the youngest national committeewoman.

“Look at the next generation,” Paul said on MSNBC. “I mean, there is so much excitement out there. The big deal is that the next generation are sick and tired of what they're getting and they're looking for something.  And what we're offering seems to appeal to the young people.”

Paul also explained that the goal of his movement “is to show that there's a political benefit toward accepting some of the views that we have.”

“I believe we're actually doing a favor for the Republican Party. If they would look to us for guidance and to realize that if they would accept some of these things, they might have an easier time winning.”

That said, not everyone's sold on just how lasting the impact of the "revolution" will be, considering Paul wasn't able to win a state in the GOP primary and didn't stop Romney, the most establishment of all the candidates, from becoming the nominee.

Asked which mattered more -- influence over party platform or being a state party chairman, Steve Schmidt, John McCain's 2008 campaign manager, dismissed either and said Paul supporters would be little more than a "hassle we'll have to deal with."

"I'm not sure that either have a particularly big influence on the direction of the party," Schmidt said on MSNBC. "When you have a state chairman who takes over a state party and the state party's dysfunctional, it's no longer relevant to the political goals of electing a majority, whether that's on the Democratic side or Republican side. Typically you see something that is taking place in California, for example, where you know the Republican parties become a small ideological clubhouse, totally faded to irrelevance where they-- factions gather twice every year to pass resolutions, denouncing the other faction, and it's a small clubhouse where people are relevant in the sphere of that small clubhouse, but no longer relevant in terms of being able to shape the outcome of an election -- to recruit candidates, to raise money, to register voters. And that's the direction these dysfunctional parties will go."

Jeff Johnson, a Republican National Committeeman from Minnesota, though, addressed the anxiety some in the establishment have over this increased participation by Paul’s followers.

“Ron Paul haters, get over it,” Johnson said. “If we don’t grow, we die as a party.”

Nearing the end of his career, Paul, 76, calls his movement an “ideological revolution,” one he says is “alive and well.”  

And this year, as Paul disciples become more involved and win elections, it’s a movement the Republican Party is being forced to deal with. 

With less than two weeks to go before student-loan interest rates are slated to double, President Obama urged his frequent foil, the “do-nothing Congress,” to extend the low rates before the July 1^st deadline.

Addressing a group of college students in the East Room of the White House, the president said despite his efforts, Congress has remained obstinate on the issue.

“We've been stuck watching Congress play chicken with another deadline,” he said. 

Susan Walsh / AP

President Barack Obama greets students after he called on Congress to stop interest rates on student loans from doubling next month during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington.

But earlier, during Thursday’s daily briefing, press secretary Jay Carney suggested the administration is bridging the gap with Republicans over how to pay for the extension. While Democrats want to cut subsidies for oil-and-gas companies, Republicans have suggested raising the amount federal employees contribute to their retirement accounts or adjusting state Medicaid payments.

“We’re getting to a point where we can hopefully reach an agreement that everybody can sign onto,” he said during the daily White House briefing.

But Carney refused to specify the congressional Republicans with whom the administration is working, even as one reporter noted that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) say the White House hasn’t reached out to them.

“I don't have specific names for you to provide," Carney said. "It is irrelevant whether or not I have a roster of names.”

But, he continued, a deal would, in fact, be the result of bipartisan -- if nameless at first -- work.  

“It will not be a miraculous conception," Carney said. "It will be the result of negotiations between this administration and Congress."

The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt an election-year blow to public-sector unions with a ruling that limits their ability to collect money for use in political campaigns from non-union employees at workplaces where a union is the bargaining agent.

The ruling comes in the wake of a major struggle over the rights of public-sector workers in which unions failed in their effort to recall Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker who’d signed a law curtailing the power of public sector unions.

The court said Thursday that non-union workers who benefit from union representation must affirmatively choose, or “opt in,” to having their “agency fees” used when a special dues increase or assessment is going to be used for political purposes. Simply giving them the option of opting out is not sufficient to protect their rights, the court held.

Charles Dharapak / AP

Justice Samuel Alito wrote Thursday's decision limiting public-sector unions from collecting fees for political purposes.

“Once it is recognized, as our cases have, that a nonmember cannot be forced to fund a union’s political or ideological activi­ties, what is the justification for putting the burden on the nonmember to opt out of making such a payment?” said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion.

He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in the decision, but voiced criticism of the majority opinion which they said was overly broad and took on policy questions that the court need not have addressed.

The dissenters in the case were Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Federal law and court decisions have long permitted unions to collect fees from nonmembers at union-represented workplaces to prevent them from free-riding on the union’s efforts and gaining benefits which the union won through collective bargaining.

But the court has also held that workers who don’t choose to join the union can only be required to pay a share of the cost of collective bargaining and can’t be forced to help pay for the union’s political advocacy.

So, for instance, if monthly dues for members were $100 and only 67 percent of that were used for collective bargaining and 33 percent used for political advocacy, then the non-members can only be required to pay $67 in what are called “agency fees” in lieu of union dues.

At stake in Thursday’s decision was a special assessment imposed by a local of the Service Employees International Union for use in campaigns in California in 2005 and 2006.

The SEIU was seeking to defeat two ballot measures: one would have required unions to obtain employees’ consent before charging them fees to be used for political purposes. The other would have given the governor the ability in some circumstances to cut public employees’ compensation.

The court said in its ruling Thursday that the union couldn’t impose the special assessment without first providing a chance for non-members to decide whether they wanted to contribute to the effort.

Reacting to the decision, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Eliseo Medina said, “We’re disappointed obviously in this decision. It imposes more restrictions on the ability of public sector workers to organize in the civic life of this country.”

He added, “We’re going to be able to deal with it. I think we can comply but the point is not compliance -- we’ve already seen a lot of attacks on the right of public workers to engage in civic activity. And we also notice that there wasn’t a thing said (in the decision) about corporations who spent unlimited amounts of money without having to ask their shareholders for permission.” He said that fact “speaks volumes about the motivation” of the justices who joined Thursday’s ruling.

Assessing the decision, Susan Carle, who teaches labor law at the American University Washington College of Law said, “It will really have a big impact on unions’ ability to raise money in order to speak for their members on political issues.”

She called the decision “a clear case of the court making it quite a bit harder for unions for spend money on political issues. And that is an interesting contrast to its other opinions in the line of Citizens United where the court is making it much easier for corporations to spend money on political purposes without much accountability to their shareholders at all. It’s a very interesting un-leveling of the playing field quite deliberately.” 

Charles Craver, an expert on labor law at the George Washington University law school and the author of the book “Can Unions Survive?”, said the narrow ruling may have wider implications. He said it is possible that the court in a future ruling would extend the opt-in rule to all “agency fees” – “and if they do that, it would be a very significant change in the law.”

Reaction also came from the Mitt Romney campaign, in a statement by its domestic policy director Oren Cass. “Once upon a time, it was unions that were protecting employee rights. Sadly, employees today must turn to the Supreme Court to protect them from those same unions.”

He added that Romney “has laid out a comprehensive labor reform agenda that will restore power to workers and let them choose whether to unionize and whether to spend their hard-earned wages on union political campaigns.”