supreme court and the cision to hear arguments about the constitutionality of t health care reform law. we talk to lawrence tribe, professor of law at harvard. >> i think this is going to be one whe the court thinks very deeply given the sweeping consequences of its ruling. not only for the patient protection and affordable care act but for the legacy of this court and the future reach of congress's power. it's clearly a blockbuster decision. >> rose: we continue with lawrence lessig, a professor at harvard with ideas to change how congress operates. >> our framers gave us what they called a republic and what they meant by a republic was a

representative democracy and what federalist 52 says is a representative democracy would be a government "dependent upon the people alone." now, whatever that means, what we snow congress has evolved a different depen dependey, a dependency upon the fonders. and that's different and conflicting with dependency upon the people because the funders are a tiny slice of the people. >> rose: also sam waterston talking about his production of "king lear" at the public theater. >> i have come to the simple idea that that's the way to do shakespeare is to say well, it says here and to the fullest extent you can understand what it says here, just do that. just do that. >> rose: we conclude with laura arrillaga-dreesseen with philanthropy. >> philanthropy has become mething that is inaccessible

an exclusive and giving is a universal opportunity. the only thing you need to have to be a philanthropist pest is generosity. i define a philanthropy as anyone who gives anything, time, money, expertise, compassion, networks or dollars in any amount. >> rose: supreme court congressional reform king lear and philanthropy when we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin the supreme court, the court dedecided today of a challenge to president obama's reform law. 26 states and a group of republican generals and attorneys general the challenge is the mandate that requires individuals to buy health

insurance or face a penalty a decision is expected in june, 2012 in the midst of the presidential campaign. this could be one of the court's most high profile decisions since bush versus gore and define the legacy of the roberts court. joining me from the kennedy school at harvard university is lawrence tribe, a professor at harvard law school. i'm pleased to have him on this program. welcome. >> pleas to be here, charlie. >> rose: tell me what the significance of this is. >> i think everybody understood that the united states supreme court would be theast stop in the challenges to this law and it's insurprise the court agreed to hear the case. what is especially interesting is that the court set five and a half hours of argent, which is a record in modern history. there was a four-hour argument on mccain-feingold back in 2003 complicated and interconnected the issues are, the court decided that its march argument

would be subdividedith two hours spent on thessue you mentioned, that is the basic question of whetherñr congress s the power to require people either to be insured or to pay a tax surcharge because of the costs that their being uninsured are likely to impose on others. that issue about the reach of congress's power is going to occupy two hours of argument. there's another issue that will require an hour and a half of argument and that's a question the court won't need to decide unless it invalidate this is mandate. thats the question of what happens to the rest of the law if the individual mandate falls? a lot of people argue that this can be pulled out like a little thread and the rest of the law would stand. otr people think the whole law would collapse. there's a middle position that says that ifht the mandate to y insurance is eliminated then the

provisions of the law that prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and charging insurance rates based on their medical history that are that would fa. but other parts of the law, the insurance exchanges, the expansion of medicaid, the provision of tax credits to lower income people, that those would still stand. so that whole issue going to take up 90 minutes. ere's a third question, a very serious question of federal law. and that is whether the so-called anti-injunction act which was passed in the 19th century and which, broadly speaking, prevents people from challenging tax provisions before they are enforced requiring people to basically pay a tax penalty and thenue for a refund. whether that apies in this case. and interestingly enough, both the united states government and the 26 states argue that it

doesn't apply but the court is going to basicay ask for the sound of one hand clapping and hear an argument of an hour's leth on that issue. finally, there is the question of whether congress exceeded its power under the spending clause of the constitution when it told the states that they would have to now cover a larger group of poor people in their medicaid programs. they wou have to cover peoe up to one and a third times the poverty level. congress would pay the full bill through 2016 but after, i think, 2020, congress would only pay 90%. and the statesre arguing that you are impermissibly-- speaking to congress-- you are impermissibly using your huge financial leverage to make us pay for more poor people. the government's response is, no we're simply defining the parameters of our program and we are telling you that we don't

wanted me cadeo pay for only the poorest of the poor, we want it to go a little more broadly. so that issue is going to take another hour. it's going to be a fascinating argument in march and i think it's going to be an even more fascinating decision in late june. >> rose: is there some kind of a consensus looking at where the court... each of the voting patterns of members of this court and the political ramifications of this as to where they might come down? >> well, there's a conventional wisdom, not a consensus. >> rose: that's what i mean. >> it's this the four more liberal members of the court are expected to go with the united states government least on the issue of the constitutionality of the mandate and the expansion of medicaid. although i don't think anybody has much prediction as to what they would say about the anti-injunction act. there's also something of a conventional wisdom-- although i

think it may overstate the certitude of the matter-- that the four mt conseativ members of t court will think congress went too far, both with respect to the mandate and with respect to medicaid. almost no one can predict or pretend to predict what they would do about the question of the anti-injunction act and whether it's too soon to assess the validity of the mandate. most of the speculation focuses on what justice kennedy, the so-called swing justice, would do. but actually it's interesting that very conservative yourists, judge larry silber man of the d.c. circuit just last tuesday and judge jeffrey sutton of the sixth circuit surprised a number of observers-- although i frankly can say i wasn't surprised-- by upholding the constitutionality of the mandate. so i think this is going to be one where the court thinks very deeply given the sweeping consequences of its ruling not only for the patient protection

and affordable care act but for the legacy of this court and the future reach of congress's powers. so it's clearly a blockbuster cision. >> re: did the administration think about th? the consequence of the individual mandate when they made this law? >> no doubt i mean, there was a lot of conversation about whether this would be constitutional. most people i think believed that because congress can do even more than that it can require everybody to pay into mecare even thgh they may themselves never need it or want it or use it. they can make everyone pay into social security. that this was a reasonable step to take. because the people who decide to swimn the stream of commerce uncovered, as it were, often end up gambling wrong. and when they were hit by a truck or suddenly get a stroke, they can't pay, although they gambled they'd be ableto pay. and then because of the way our laws and our society treat medical care as something that

you can't withhold from soone they can't pay, they impose billions and billions of dollars of costs on taxpayers and others increasing the average family' insurance premium by a thousand dollars. so this seemed like a reasonable application of the commerce power given the supreme court's precedence. but no one had any doubt about whether this would be challenged. everyone kneit wld be challenged and the challenge would end up i thsupreme court. >> rose: compare this decision to important decisions that this... that any supreme court has made. >> there are quite narrow ways to uphold this law because of the unique character of the health care market. health care is the one product, pretty much, that nobody can avoid needing, unfortunately, at some point in his or her life and most people need it at unpredictable points and this isn't true of oerth markets. it also isn't true of other markets that we have laws requiring the provision of

health care even to people who cannot pay. and if the court upholds the law very narrowly, it's not going to be the cataclysmic decision. but if upholds it broadly or strikes it down, all bets are off in terms of the reach of congress's power in the future. >> rose: so it can be a very limited... if the broadest terpretation results then it could be a huge impact on future congressional active any >> that's right. it could be a turnback to the days before the new deal. because there are a number of justices who i think have some doubts butor so called stare decisis-- sticking to past decisions-- who have doubts that whether they in the late '30s and '40s would have upheld f.d.r.'s new deal. and if the court broadly strikes down this law-- says congress has gone down too far here-- then it will cast a cloud over

congress's power to build a safety net in other areas. it could be a decision more important than any since the late '30s in terms of congress por. >> rose: thank you so much. great to have you back. >> you're welcome, charlie, great to be here. >> rose: lawrence lessig is here he's the director of the edmund j. saffir foundation center for ethics at harvard. a few years ago he shifted his focus to fighting corruption and reforming our democracy. his new book is called "republic lost-- how money corrupts congress and a plan to stop it." i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: i have lots to talk to you about. let me talk about the announcement about the supreme court hearing the challenge, the constitutional challenge to the health care reform passed by the congress. >> so i think this court is going to uphold this law. i don't see how the conservatives-- consistent with what they've said before-- can vote to strike down this law. especially justice scalia who i think made very clear in my judgment the right view of how

the constitution should be interpreted with respect to congress's power. his opion in a case about the power of congress to regulate homegrown marijuana seems to me to directly overlap with the question here and i think that will lead to this case being held... >> rose: in other words, he believes when he wrote that opinion he has to come to the conclusion that congress has the power to do this. >> unless there's some very elegant trick to show why these two issues different, he has to comeo the same conclusion here. >> rose: what happened to you? how did you go from here to there? i don't mean a geographical way. >> i understand. well, you know, i've been on your show many times talking about these issues. intellectual property and the way to think a how to balance this and what i found was in the world people were ñit( 9t

would have support for over barack obama and so i don't think he's going to be the nominee. >> rose: huntsman or whom? >> buddy romer. >> rose: oh? >> buddy who's made his whole that's exactly the fus i think need. that what the book is about but i certainly nope any of the other candidates are candidates, th... >> rose: all the republicans you've seen you hope barack obama is reelected? i hope so, yes. >> rose: we somehow lost our sense of who we are? >> yeah. it's notard to have that question when you recognize that we have become completely incapable as a nation of addressing the most fundamental policy province that the nation face so whether it's global warming or health care or issues on the right weave a government that just cannot address and resolve these issues. ani think a lot of people begin to wonder whether democracy itself should be questioned.

i was at an event where one of the wealthiest people in the world basically spoke so glowingly about the chinese systems where we don't have these problems and it's a technocratic system and it terrified me. it reminded me of a story in england in the 1930s of people looking to germany and talking about how wonderful hitler was in gerny. and there's a general sense that maybe democracy doesn't work anymore. >> rose: i think you're right there. 's a sense that state capitalism a better try go, that they can get things done. >> exactly right. >> rose: we want things to be done and we think democracy stands in the way. >> i think that might be right. i don't believe that might be right but before we get there we've got to try to have a real democracy where what's driving the decisions is not the will of a tiny fraction of funders in the campaign but instead driving the decisions as mo what we the people actually want and the system we've got right now systematically distorts what the people want because of the enormous power that the funders

have in the system. >> rose: should the president have takent all on when he got washington head on almost in a populistull charge? >> i certainlyish he had and then let's have the fight in 2010 about whether this populist charge against the corruption of the systemhould win and let's have the election in 2010 about whether he should win and i think if you had that election... >> rose: okay, but demanding... there was lots of compelling reasons for him to focus on a whole range of things. he thought health care because he promised that. some say he could have waited until a later time. other said he should have focused with a laser-like intensity on the economy and creating jobs. and you say he should have been about changing the system because that was crucial to getting anything else done over the long term. >> well, look, heook on health care but he didn't take on health care in the way he promised, right? he promised during the campaign to have a blic option inside of health care and, number two,

promised he would take on a system which he attacked that george bush gave us where the pharmaceutical companies didn't even have to negotiate prices for the drugs that they would be selling the governmen inside of these programs those were fundamental compromises to what he promised in the election. and those compromises lead people to believe it's the same old problem all over again. same thing with financial reform. of course we had a catastrophe of how to deal with this catastrophe but the question is how do you that? do you do in the a way that signals to the amerin public that nothing has changed by making a million deals with petty interests in a way that makes it seem like politics is just about bargaining away interests. or do you do in the a way that signals the more fundamental reform, the only way we're going to change this system for our skids the fundamental problem. so we were in a crisis, but a crisis is an opportunity. it was the chance to do something. >> rose: so what's the opportunity today that you'r suggesting oughtto happen >> i'm not sure the president is

at the center of that right now. i wish he would take it up but i don't think that's going to happen. i ink what people are increasingly recognizing as we look at these populist outside-the-beltway movements on the left and the right, the tea party and the occupy movements, people are recognizing in a sense we need to build an ouide-the-beltway movement demanding fundamental change. >> rose: what do you make of this? the tea party understood that they were agents of change and they got involved in the political syst and that therefore if occupy wherever, wall street, wants to have a political impact it's not by sitting in protest in different venues around the world it's about getti out ght now and saying we argoing to change the composition of the congress. >> right. but the question is what's the change you're aiming? i think that the tea party actually moved to quickly to becoming... >> rose: electorally. >> to becoming just an army of the republican party. they have enormous power because they have 60 votes. but they're just kind of a

republican engine right now. and they lost-- at least some of them, i think-- the opportunity to say "we're talking about something more fundamental. we're not talking about getting more republicans in congress, we're talking about getting a government that's responsive again to what the people want. "and while i agree with you, i think the occupy movement has got to recognize that sitting in wall street or sitting on k street or sitting next to south station in boston is not going to change the world, i think that many of them think look, we're not just talking about getting more democrats in congress. because if the democrat wes get in congress do what they did with the financial reform bill-- which is basically sell out to the interests that are there demanding that they give them whatever they want if they want their campaign money, we haven't got anything. so i think everybody in a sense recognizes if we've got to find a way to le tlej reform movement to a real change, not just one party taking over over another party. >> rose: do you think bankers are saying we won the financial reform fighting? >> i think they got a lot more than any of them would have expected. >> rose: because they're

complaining about the fact that these regulations will inhibit economic groh. >> of course they are. but this is exactly what they need to be saying. i think 2008 youif had asked any of them whether they would be able to block financial reform as effectively as they did 90% would have said no. they all thought the world was different. that we were going to have a substaial reregulation. >> reporter: the volcker rule will or will not be enacted as defined by the regulatory authorities now? >> the question is what the 10 regulations underneath it do. >> rose: that's what they're doing now. the consumer protection agency. >> same thing. >> rose: in other words it will be so ameliorated it will have none of the teeth that people who created the law... >> rose: intended it to happen. >> and this is the way our system works. on the surface you have decisions that make it sound like you're responding. >> rose: that's true in health care, that's true in financial regulation.

it's true... >> it's the general form of how our governmentorks now. >> rose: stay with me, this is at the heart of your book. that's not... that's not a democracy in your judgment because a few are making the decisions because of the power of their money and influence. >> right. so our framers gave us what they called a republic and what they meant by a republic was a representive democracy. and what federalist 52 says is that a representative democracy would be a government "dependent upon the people alone." now, whatever that means what we ow is congress has evolved a different dependency. a dependency upon the funders. and that dependency is different and conflicting depending upon the people because the funders are a tiny slice of the people. if you ask who in 2010, what percentage of americans maxed out in a contribution in a congressional campaign? the answer is .05%. so, you know occupy wall street

says "we're the 99%." that's bad marketing. they should be saying "we're the 99.95% who don't have access and influence inside this system because we are not the .05% with the extraordinary power with funders in this system have." >> rose: and it's changed more now because of the court ruling that allowed... >> independent expenditures. absolutely. it will be much worse. so what we've got is a democracy that is corrupted relative to what the framers intended. it's a kind of dependency corruption. and not because the congressmen are criminals. you know, i think this is a confusion when people talk about corruption. i'm not saying that it's rod blagojevich throughout the whole system. i'm not saying that these are people who violate criminal laws. these are good people, decent people who go to washington trying to do what they believe is right. but they get in a system where they can't help but be distorted as they spend 30% to 70% of their time raising money to get back to congress. >> rose: and therefore they' not being effective at what they believe they were sent there to

. whatever their political opinion. if you he to worry about getting reelected... >> or get your party back in power you can't help but be destroyed. you become shape shifters as you adjust your view. >> rose: so how do you change the financing? >> well, there are two questions. what's the right answer? and the second one is how do we get there. the first someone easy. >> rose: what's the right answer? >> the right answer is a way of funding elections that's a small dollar system for funding elections. i describe a version in my book which is a little bit different from the ones that have been proposed that basically says, look, all voters pay at least $50 in taxes. so let's take the first $50 you pay and rebate it to you in the form of a democracy voucher. and then you can use that voucher to give to any congreional candidate as long as that candidate agrees to fund s or her campaign with those vouchers only and contributions of up to $100 from any citizen. so $50 a voter i $6 billion in the election cycle. that's 2.5 times the amount

spent in 2010. so it's real money. and if it were a system where the majority or 70% of candidates opted into that way of funding their elections, then nobody could believe when congress did something stupid that it was because of the money. it may have been because there were too many democrats or republicans, whatever, but it wouldn't have been the money because we have removed this fundamental source of cynicism in our system because congressmen would be raising their none chunks that nobo could believe could be... >> rose: and what chance does this have? >> under this xong? exactly zero. i looked it up on google. >> rose: (laughs) zero. >> so what we need is a movement outside of congress to force the institution into adopting the kind of funding system that we can trust again. they got elected under the old system, they don't want to change it. many of them see their life under the old system as a steppingstone to become lobbyists. a farm league for k street as jim cooper fm tennessee describes it. so they don't want to change a system where lobbyists won't be

as valuable. >> rose: what happened to mccain-feingold? >> so it's effectively dead. there's some parts that still survive but its strategy was different. its strategy was to say there's certain kinds of money we don't like, let's dampen it down. that's been th strategy of reform for the past 30 years. my view is that's just never going to be enough. you'reever going to succeed by silencing certain speech in this system. they find a way to getheir influence back in. instead we have to find a solution to add more speech into the system, more money into the system but money that isn't distorted in the way we think big money is. >> rose: so your democracy voucher... >> that's one way. right. >> rose: what relation you working on when you try to deal with the idea of the way the american political system works? >> well, i think the hardest pa of this problem right now... so the first one was what's the rightanswer. the second one is how do we get there? the hardest part is recognizing th people from radically different perspectives need to

work together to get there. so i went to k street and gave a teach-in at k street and i said "you guys may believe in capitalism or not. i believe in capitalism but you may not. nobody believes in crony capitalism. and if you would start invading tea party people down to these meetings and start talking about crony capitalism, you could build a movement that was across the board movement for reform." this could have been scripted in hollywood. just then a guy raises his hand and says "i was one of the founders of the tea party and i run a web site called againstcronycapitalism.com and i can guarantee you if you start talking about this you would have tea party people down here supporting this movement." after i said that i started getting killed in the left wing press by people that were saying this is absolutely the wrong idea to talk to those "racists" from the right. and, you kw, my view was wait a minute, i'm not a mathematician but if you say you're speaking for the 99% and you take the 100% and remove the 30% of amecans who cal themselvesupporters of the tea

party, i'm not sure how you get to 99%. the point is we have these business models in american life media as well as politics, that are focused on polarization. let's teach each other to hate each other. and the idea of teaching each other to talk to each other, not by giving up your views or compromising but saying we need to talk to each other is the hardest thing to motivate people around but that's the essential step to getting change. >> rose: suppose i said to you, okay, let's make this table that we're sitting at a venue for debate. on the important questions that ought to be looked at in the coming presidential campaign, congressional campaign as well. >> i thought that's what it was. >> rose: it is indeed but tell me what the issues ought to be. that's what i'm asking. >> well, we have to have another debate where we can have a political system where people actually trust the results or the product of principle as opposed to money. 75% of americans believes money

buys results in congress and when 75% believe money buys results in congress they natully-- if you're not the person with the money-- stay home. they don't participate, they have enormous cynicism. it's an institution which the "new york times" reported two weeks ago has 9% confidence in america. 9%! there are more people who believed in the british crown at the time of the revolution than who believe in this congress today. so i think we have to recognize this ititution is fundamently bankrupt, politically bankrupt. and until we can earn the respect to restore the trust in the institution we won't have a system that call k call itself the government of the people. >> rose: "republic lost, a corrupcongress a plan to stop it." lawrence lessig, thank you, great to see you, as alwa. >> great to see you. >> rose: sam waterston is best known for playing jack mccoy in the long-running television show lau and order. he has a wealth of experience pling shakespeare. he was in productions of hamlet,

henry 4-and "much ado about nothing." spoke in september when he was preparing to start in the new york public theater's production of "king lear". the show has since opened and is playing through november 20. here's my conversation with sam waterston. >> when i say shakespeare for you, what does it mean? >> well the... >> rose: the experience it's enabled you to have as an actor. >> it's made my life interesting from the beginning, from the very first time that i came to new yorknd so my career has been... you know, my career would be unrecognizable without thehakespearehat i've done. without public theater, without the new york shakespeare festival. it would be a... it wou have been a completely different career. it invited people to think about me as a comedian, as a romantic lead, as a tragic hero. all kinds of thing they might not have thought of otherwise.

>> rose: would it be unfair to say it gave you a chance to show your chops? >>tertainly did. but i think all of tse things, what it did for me is neither here nor there. i thi whater the reason is that prompted you to wan to do a show about shakespeare is probably the reason... same reason i'm fascinated by it because... for my money, it's got something to do with... well i think he knows more about us than any other expert on us. and he has a better way of telling us what he knows than almost anybody else. because it'snot in a book. you t a performance. >> rose: this is what you said. i'll repeat it. "i've been aching to play shakespeare. this was..."

>> this must have been... >> rose: 1996, "washington post." "i've been aching to play shakespeare. it's been a long time and the thirst increases. with shakespeare you have the opportunity to say everhing in your heart truer than one's own power." that's it. that's it. in addition to that and what i was trying to get at was then you see a production you're seeing wt he knowsaid befe you in an interesting and entertaining fashionnd it's transpiring between peoples. so it's being made new. you can read "king lear" and remember what you read and you can read it againnd remember what you read and then you go see it and it's a different animal because the relations... it's not so much whether it's

sam waterston playing "king lear or anybody else, it's much more to do with the relations between a performance which is where i think shakespeare is... his genius lies. >> rose: the relationship between the performers. >> yeah, that the characters are exposed not by the genius of the actor or that actor but in the relations between the characters. and of course that's what you would expect from dramatic writing. but when it's at its very peak you get to learn about the innards of people in a way that's kind of unimaginable that maybe you can do on a psychiatrist couch or something like that but that in ordinary life you can't get there from here. >>ose: you can't... >> you can't know people that way. >> rose: or you can't... exact or you can't command the

language to express it that way. >> well you... yes. but i would say even though the language is sublime, it's second to this genius for putting people... people... my son says this is his favorite line in shakespeare. it hath no bottom. putting characters on the stage that have no bottom one next to another and the things that happen between them reveal each of them in a way that you could never know them individually. >> rose: how so how are you approaching sflaer with anything different than you approached "hamlet"? >> i think i've... i hope i've learned a few things about how to do this since then. >> rose: really? so what do you think that might being? >> more and more over the

years-- and this is ptly to do with what we've just been talking about-- i've come to the simple idea that the best way to do shakespeare to say well, it says here and to the fullest extent that you can understand what it says her, just do that. just do that. >> rose: i hear you. but if, in fact the words are that great but... a great actor will be different than an o.k actor. >> rose: maybe it's measured to some degree in the ability of the better actors to get out of the way of william. >> rose: but i'm trying to figure this out. because it is the text which is the greatness. it's what he gave us. he can't give us actors, he gave

us lines. >> but he gave us lines that were supposed to be said by actors. it's the relational stuff. these plays were written to be performed and as you know they weren't even written to be preserved. it's a pure acciden that we have them at all. >> rose: so how do you... tell me how you're preparing for "lear"? >> reading the text very, very carefully. >> rose: until you have... >> until i with the othe actors and my wonderful director james mcdonald and that absolutely fabulous cast have figured it out to our best ability what it says. and there is a puzzle there. >> rose: but figuring out what it says seems to me seems to influence how you would read the text. >> yeah, yeah. you have to keep going back

around and back an around. >> rose: you have to know something or care about something. >> you read you know a little something. you do it you learn a little something. you go back and read itagain you learn a little something. it's a lot of patient labor. but that's what we're doing. >> rose: who is hear? >> who is he? >> rose: yea. >> well... >> rose: he's a king with daughters. >> he's kind of you and me. when i first started doing shakespeare i thought he was on such a high mountaintop, so far away, so distant. so sublime that just getting to the hem of his garment would be an enormous achievent for any human being. but really and truly he's

talking about us. and by the time he gets to writing "lear" he's talking in words with one syllable. he's talking like... he's using all the same vocabular that you and i are using now nus the wordvocabulary." you know, very few complicated words. the poetry is constructed out of simple... some of the most moving things in the play are the repetition of a word "never, never, never, never." >> rose: is there a moment in a performance of shakespeare that you remember best? is there one that you will tell your grandchildren and almost want to repeat the words because you... you... you were so almost out of body in terms of... or in the zone or any sports metaphor you want to play? >> i do remember the wonderful

sensation of playing "hamlet" and thinking for an instant that i had as big a mind as that. and this is unforgettable. that is one of the big attractions of doing these things. but right now my head is so full of "lear" and i am... >> rose: living and breathing... >> his shut so near the surface with me now-- his hurt is so near the surface with me now. another kind of person i could be boo-hooing foryou right here. >> rose: if what? >> if i were another kind of person i would be boo-hooing for you right here. >> rose: this makes it all the more exciteing to know what you're going through to see the performance. >> i hope people wil come. that's why i'm here.

i want people to come and see this play. you know, you're always in a peculiar position when you... when you're beating the drum far play when it's in rehearsal because i don't know how it's going to turn out. i don't know if it's going to be okay or not. but i... iope lots and lots of people will come. it's an absolutely wonderful company. >> rose: well, i can tell you one. i'll be there. thank you, sam, pleasure to have you. >> thank you. >> rose: laura arrillaga-andreesen is here, he search for a new model for philanthropy began while at stanford business school. she use an adventure capital style of investing to benefit philanthropic causes. he book seeks to empower givers of all levels to get the most out of their investment. i'm pleased to have her here at this table for the first time because she's a wonderful friend and i'm delighted that we got

her here. at long last. >> rose: i'm thrilled to be here thank you, charlie. >> rose: tell me how philanthropy became a part of yourife. >> i am blessed to be the daughter of two extraordinary philanthropists. my late mother, frances, was an amazing community volunteer and social entrepreneur and she lived a beautiful life of generosity and my father, john rest rest senior is one of his generation's most generous. he is a transformatiol philanthropist in every regard and it's their inspiration and their model that has prompted me and inspired me to live a life debt kated to service. >> rose: did this come about after your mom's death so you began to think about her life and realized this was a kind of pathway for you. >> so when i was 23 year old i

had just been accepted to stanford graduate school of business and we found out that my mother had cancer and it was during that time when i stayed at home and took care of her and for the first time lived completely outside of myself in service of another human being that i realized the beautyf living a life based in selflessness and generosity and it was that experience of taking her... taking care of her during her time of greatest suffering that made me realize that the purpose for my life-- really my whole existence-- was carry on her work and to create a new legacy and giving and furthering the field of philanthropy. >> she was involved in lots of boards and she was really an enormously active woman in her community. did lots of good things.

>> absolutely. >> rose: and your dad is the largest benefactor of stanford university among other institutions so this really was part of the family. >> absolutely, it was my notion of normalcy that giving was as essential to everyday living as breathing and eating. >> rose: and when you got to stanford business school how did that influence what you think? >> when i was a student at stanfo business school all of my classmates were completely consumed with the internet revolution that was happening around us. >> rose: (laughs) your husband mark. >> i believe myhusband was... >> rose: consumed by it. >>... active in that arena as well. but everyone around me was writing business plans for new internet companies and new ways to make money and being in that highly entrepreneural environment ipired me to write a business plan for a new organizationo give away none a way that matters moreand

ultimately has greater impact. >> rose: you describe here a lot of people at the end of the year if they have a lot of money but haven't engaged themselves in philanthropy look and say "i have to give so much money and i want to give so much money, who do i give it to?" then requests come in and they look at that, rather than having proactive approach. tell me what proactive means. >> rose: exactly. so giving the 1.0 way is reactive. it's giving that you feel like you should do and it's based on other people's passions and requests for your time or your financial resources. giving 2.0 is something that you want to do because proaive giving is based on discovering your own passion and doing research around that passion. exploring which organizations are working most effectively a efficientfully that particur area and giving by marrying your

heart and your mind. proactive giving is something that you want to do and that's part of your year-round life as opposed to just the end of the year. >> rose: the lake brooke astor in new york pneered that. brooke astor would go visit anything that she thought she might want t give to, whatever the level of money, she would go and visit and meet the people and decide whether it touched her own heart before she engaged her own philanthropic impact. philanthropy has a broader definition for you than it does for most people. >> absolutely. philanthropy traditionally has become sometng that is inaccessible and exclusive and giving is a universal opportunity. the only thing you need to have to be a philanthropi as generosity. i define a philanthropist as anyone who gives anything-- time money, expertise, compassion, networks, or dollars-- in any

amount. >> rose: how will this book be a guide for us,giving 2.0." >> "giving 2.0" is essentially a way to empower any giver at any level to make their giving matter more. to make their giving more meaningful both to them as a giver and to the people and organizations that we ultimately aspire to help. and giving today, there are infinite possibilities. there are countless organizations and overwhelming social problems and giving.0 is essentially a one-stop shop, a state-of-the-art g.p.s. system to navigate the giving possibilities available. >> rose: but it begins with understanding where your passion is. >> rose: yes. but that's just the starting point. so 65% of all giving decisions have no research behind them. they are purely emotionally

based. i would argue extracting the emotion and replacing it with some strategy so moving our giving from sympathetic to strategic enables us to do more with less. because right now we are in this we are in a very trying economic time. as you know so well, 2.6 billion people globally live on less than $2 a day, less than the price of a loaf of bread. here in this country e in eighamericans received emergency food help last year. now more than ever we need to give the most and we need to make the most of what it is that we have together. >> rose: i've always assumed more people would give more if th could see the direct with their own eyes the impact that their giving could have. they could see and feel and if it resonated th their own sense of it was just about the world.

>> absolutely. giving the 1.0 way is about having good intentions and essentially gettg a momentary buzz from the act of giving. but you don't understand how your generosity is touching and transforming individual lives. giving 2.0 is about understanding the exact meaning that your gift is having on the people and organizations you hope to help through your generosity. and it's that meaning and understanding that ultimately contributes to your life long happiness. and that type of giving is the type of giving that you want to do again and again. >> rose: silicon valley as a place where lots of people at a young age have made lots of money. are there approaches to felon throepdifferent than say... that existed for traditional route of people having made a lot of money and somebody middle age or later decide they're

going spend the later years of their life giving money. >> what is so exciting about beinin silicon valley, paicularly in the last ten years. is that with this new generation, themillennials-- and we're seeing this with teen to individuals who are in their 30s--. >> rose: what do you call them >> the millennials. there is a new notion of normalcy around a commitment to creating positive social chae. so whether we're talking about entrepreneur entrepreneurs or talking about young studes coming right out of college and working in technology companies, there is a commitment to having positive transformation in our world associated with everyday every decision that those individuals are making. and we have tremendous leadership? silicon valley right now with this new generation of entrepreneurs to take on rules

of philanthropic leadership. >> rose: but wanted to be effective and different than in the past. what is s.v. 2? >> s.v. 2 is a venture philanthropy partnership and giving circle. we have been around for about 13 years. we have a portfolio of about 35 highly innovative nonprofit organizations in silicon valley and our mission is twofold we empower and educate all our partner investors their time, their treasure d their talent to the... tcubed, to be as effective as possible in all of their giving. so we teach our partners through experiential education coming together and self-educating around specific social issues areas.

learning how to assess a nonprofit from top to bottom. then we pool all of our resources and we give multiyear organizational capacity building grants to early stage local nonprofits to help them run more effectively and efficiently businesses. and in turn scale up their service provision and ultimately touch more lives. >> rose: so where will you be in five years from now? >> hopefully i'll be ba here on this show. >> rose: but this is a full time commitme for you in terms of making philanthropic endeavors in terms of creative, innovative entrepreneurial and having maximum impact. >> the purpose of my life and profession is to rther the field of philanthropy. >> rose: touch as many lives as you can. >> absolutely. and for me my greatest social passion is empowering and

educating other individual givers because for mehat is where i can hav the greatest possible leverage in terms of maki our world a better place. >> rose: great to see you. >> i'm honored to be here.