in 1997 bill buckley and michael kinsley. >> mr. kinsley is involved in a new world of computers and internet. how long do think you magazine like yours is going to last and will have to go the route of the slate? >> about a million years. >> there's no chance of it in transplanted in this world? >> i think inevitably what one comes up in any publication will be progressively available to readers using different devices for looking at it. then having it delivered in the door. mr. fowler, the importance of electronic communications today. that was in 1997. guest: it is hugely important. we exist out in order to put ink on paper, but we exist to stand up or history yelling stop. you do it by what medium is available. beyond "national review" in the early 60s and of course in the 70s and 80s, he used television. his show "firing line" was hugely important to the conservative movement. that said, i hope and pray that the innt data continues to exist because it isne, a thing that people tend to pay for. it is a source of revenue. as anyo

to take out buckley. >> which they were formally not willing to do. >> right. some people can argue that it is misguided and other people argue to get rid of this artificial distinction. willing to doem that at this point. but that is a bit of a gamble. >> does anyone see this being a big sweeping -- let's walk away from buckley -- kind of case or is this something that they will do narrowly, too? >> i think they will uphold these things. the rationale makes no sense. if i give 10 $25 contributions with that corrupt anybody, what difference does it make if i make 100 $20 contributions? i don't really see any opportunity here or necessarily appetite to throughout the whole distinction between contributions and expenditures. justice kennedy has expressed some displeasure with this distinction in the past. >> they could lay the foundation for that. they can continue to express foundation. then two or three years out, they can do that. i do think it will have enormous real world impact your people get very excited about these cases in certain groups. but it does ef

buckley said he wanted to shout, he didn't want to give up on the governmental process. he didn't want to give up in the ability of the american government to take wildly die verge interviews, to take very harsh arguments and somehow make progress from them. the difference between what bill buckley was doing with the national review a generation or two and what some of the websites on the right are doing now is that the current crop, and i would put ted cruz in that category and some of the younger tea party people in that category is that they fundamentally don't believe in this system that the founders put together to be able to settle the arguments that they are fighting. so the irony is they're the ones saying that they're americans and the others aren't, whether it's these people who seem to have deep, deep, deep doubts, if not total fear of the very political system that the founders created. >> yeah. and the great comment, george f. will who said the american people are conservative. they wish to conserve the new deal. they like social security. they like medicare

what has changed since buckley? >> the statute has changed significantly to impose base limits on the parties, both the state and federal parties. it has changed to prohibit proliferation of political committees give one of the concerns and buckley was the dairy industry which contributed to hundreds of pacs supporting president nixon's reelection. as i read the lower court in buckley, that is correct. in addition, you also have -- you have a thick volume of a coat of regular editions for the federal election commission which did not exist at the time of buckley. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, your honor. >> mr. chief justice and it may please the court. aggregate limits, corruption. let me start explaining exact we have. aggregate limits combat corruption both by blocking circumvention of individual contribution limits and equally fundamentally by serving as a bulwark against a campaign- dominated bym massive individual contributions in which the dangers of quid pro quo corruption would be obvious and inheren

what has changed since buckley? >> your honor, the -- the statute has changed significantly to impose base limits on the parties, to impose on both the state and -and federal parties. it has changed to prohibit proliferation of political committees. one of the concerns in buckley was the dairy industry, which contributed to hundreds of pacs supporting president nixon's re- election. that is no longer possible. >> those were all created by the dairy industry or by the nixon campaign, is that correct? >> that's not -- as i understand as i read the lower court decision in buckley, that is correct. in addition, you also have -- you also have a thick volume >> then how is it that >> in addition, you also have -- you also have a thick volume -- you have a thick volume of the code of federal regulations of the federal election commission, which did not exist at the time of 26 alderson reporting company >> general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- aggregate limits combat corruption. let me start

. >> in buckley, the court sustained aggregate limit. what has changed since buckley? >> your honor, the statute has changed significantly to impose islamic, parties on both the state and federal parties. it is changed to prohibit proliferation of political committees. one of the concerns in buckley with the dairy industry, which contributed to hundreds of pac. that is no longer possible. >> those were all created by the dairy industry or nixon campaign. >> as i read the lower court decision in buckley, that is correct. in addition, you have a thick volume of the code of federal regulations of the federal election commission, which did not exist in time. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, your honor. >> mr. chief justice and may i please the court? aggregate limit combat corruption. let me start by explaining exactly how. aggregate limit combat corruption both by blocking circumvention of individual confirmation limit and equally fundamentally by serving as a bulwark against the campaign finance system dominated by massive individual contributions, which the dangers

. >> what buckley was writing was give up on the democrats.ve the soul of the democratic party and maintain this conservative element of which the magazine really was. >> reporter: he fired off a letter to buckley writing reagan still had, quote, a lot to answer for on foreign policy and his domestic policy was far worse. quote, the catalog of sins we believe the president has committed is too long to recapitulate here. krauthammer says he privately wanted reagan to beat his old boss, walter mondale. >> i worked for mondale in 1980. i liked him and had respect for him. as a personal matter. as a matter of honor i didn't want to vote against a man for whom i had respect and affection. >> reporter: so you have a vote -- reagan or mondale? >> that's the only president's election where i left the line blank. if i had been the swing vote i would have had to vote for reagan sthrks it was a turning point in his transition from the political left to the political right. >> just a few months after the election i wrote the reagan doctrine. >> reporter:

son, lance corporal greg buckley jr.shot and killed along with two other marines at the same base. >> he was in the gym with his friends just working out, and they just walked in and with an ak-47 given to him by the chief of police, sarwa jan. at about 8:30 at night on august 10th executed three marines. >> the only reason that the shooter was on that base and had access to weapons is because he was the child sex abuse victim of the afghan district police chief. >> reporter: the suspected shooter was reportedly a teenage servant of sarwa jan. both reportedly detained after the shooting. now afghan officials say they do not know their whereabouts. 14 months later, u.s. central command has yet to publish the results of an investigation into the incident. the only person facing any charges is major bresler for using an unsecure e-mail account. >> it's wrong to be going after the one person who seems to have done by all accounts did the right thing. >> reporter: the many unanswered questions leaving congressman peter king a

you were talking about bill buckley. bill buckley was a racist.ack people, and he said that white people -- whites had a right to discriminate against blacks in the united states. ? he retracked that -- >> we're talk about conservative ideology and it is growing out of that. goldwater, the opposition to civil rights. it is lee atwater. i wrote about what lee atwater said, you know, you can't say the n word, he said, three times, boom, boom, boom, you can't say that anymore. so then you have to turn to the code words. but the point is that this is what the republican party has stood for. and when ronald reagan -- >> i want to make sure -- >> when ronald reagan kicked off this general campaign and did it in philadelphia, mississippi, what is the message that he's sending out there? the free civil rights workers have been murdered in 1964. >> here is what you see again this odd tangle and mess between conservative ideology on the one hand and republican party on the other. the very first modern civil rights bill, very watered down, the first one sinc

and i must say, a dear, dear, dear friend of mine, the great betty buckley. >> thanks, michael. >> in a rip-roaring performance as the meanest woman on the new york stage. >> haskins: u are literally tearing up the scenery. >> riedel: you are literally smashing everything in sight. hallie, give us a sense, for people who haven't seen the play, what it's about and where it fits in your father's canon of work, when he began to work on this play. >> well, my father started working on this play in the mid-60's, and the play actually takes place in 1965. michael wilson, who's our director, he's great at researching things, and he grabbed -- my father's papers were at smu in texas, and he got them to send a version of this play, and it was originally called the dispossessed. he made a lot of notes and then he changed the name of it and called it the old friends. >> riedel: which is an ironic title, because they don't treat each other like friends throughout much of the play. >> that are all dispossessed. but anyway, and then he didn't do too much with it because he was sort of not working m

buckley. >> no one knows those words. >> i think on both sides passions run very high. we're in a new media world where you have a huge risch shay and echo chamber and feeds off itself so when passions are running high it builds and constantly escalates. is that a good thing? not necessarily but i don't see how you can contain it. >> i'm not containing it, by the way. i'm trying to understand it. freedom of speech extends into all this rhetoric. >> and -- >> wait. i've been guilty of being bombastic. >> shocking. >> i don't do it evilly. i didn't do it in a mean-spirited way. it was more frustration. i don't want to hurt my opponents but they want to hurt him. >> remember, politics -- >> wouldn't you say sometimes you may as you just said things come out in frustration. not because you want to hurt the opponent. couldn't that also be said by the politicians and other obliviaters we saw in the clip? they're not necessarily or want to hurt somebody like you but frustrated at the moment. >> could be but they have a pattern of behavior that people -- the commercial features

ivan watson, cnn, new york. >>> you just heard there from a father, greg buckley sr.rine now facing disciplinary action, his son, greg buckley jr., also sensed an attack was coming, telling his dad, i am going to be killed over here, in our base. and i talked with that dad just about a year ago about his son's prediction. and what he told me live during the show is as emotional as it is chilling. >> the afghani officer was tormenting him and saying that they didn't want him there, didn't need him. just kept going, repeating it over and over again. >> you hear this on the phone. what are you saying to him? and then what does he say to you in the fateful call in november? >> well, first, he started -- he was upset. and you know, he just said, dad, i just want to come home. he goes, these people don't love us. they don't care about us. they're cold, they're vicious people. but then out of nowhere, he turned around and said but the children, the kids are so great. after they turn a certain age, they're just vicious people through and through. me and my fellow marines, we

do you want buckley reversed?hat buckley -- we don't think that buckley needs to be reversed to we are getting in this case. we think that these limits are under the ional current system because in this they impose impermissible burdens to candidates o ten instead of nine. o i don't think you need to change the entire system to hold these limits constitutional. think to take questioning today revealed that there are some questions about itself. em >> so if -- if -- if the aggregate limits are unconstitutional because they number of people you can give to and the way in which give to them, why not the limits themselves. >> the case is not about the ase contribution limits, those limits have been justified on different grounds, grounds have that that have to do with the relationship between candidates and people giving them contributions. if you're talking about an limit, you're not talking about how much someone can contribute to one candidate. impose restrictions on how many candidates someone can support. there d

swing justice in this case you know he is up held in case after case this distinction that we had buckley where you know campaigns. pending restrictions tend to fall but we've always up held contribution limits the supreme court has never struck down a federal crime they have an opportunity to arguably in citizens united right it shows not and here they have a chance to mr mcconnell saying you know take it even a step farther you know this case is really about that overall image so the twenty six hundred dollars limit that you can give to a candidate directly is a stance of lee not at issue senator mcconnell's asking to make it an issue he's asking the court to revise forty years of precedent and throw that out the out the window to at that point you know it's game set match for our democracy if there are no contribution limits we have opened up the doors to a system of complete and utter legalized bribery it undermines representative democracy and we have a system where our elected officials are bought and paid for we've become an oligarchy exactly and now some will say to well what's th

case was actually started long before that but it got really codified with buckley and then with thefirst national bank and and then citizens united that money is not a commodity that money somehow is protected under the first amendment that actually represents speech right that. that blew up mccain feingold i mean you you said earlier once everybody had maxed out their maximum contributions then the war stopped well if there had been much smaller maximum contributions there would have been that war in the first place isn't money really at the core of this problem rather than government i think that money is a symptom of the problem it's an outgrowth of the problem the reason that money flows into washington you know d.c. you know this is where the studio is this is a boom town washington d.c. is doing fantastically well the question is why are companies sending money to washington one of the reasons is crony capitalism which is an enormous problem and you've got a lot of corporations that have come to the conclusion sadly that they are better off spending x. amount of dollars hiring

to you want buckley reversed? >> we don't think that aid needs to be reversed. we think that these limits are unconstitutional under the current system because in this system they impose impermissible burden is on people's ability to contribute to ten candidates instead of nine and contributes to parties instead of making independent expenditures. you don't need to change the entire system to hold these limits constitutional, but the questioning today revealed that there are some questions about the system itself. >> if the aggregate limits are unconstitutional because they limit the number of people they can give to and the way in which you can give, why not the actual contribution limits themselves? >> the case is not about the base, to the -- contribution limits. those of bin justified on grounds that have to do with the direct relationship between candidates and people giving them contributions. when you're talking about an aggregate limit you're not talking about how much someone can contribute to one candidate. you are imposing restrictions on how many can

. >> now, all these were there at but for one -- were there at the time of buckley vs. valeo, and i guess the court thought something could happen like the following -- candidate smith, we can only give him $2600, but he has a lot of supporters. and each of them, 40 of them gets a brainstorm. and each of the 40 puts on the internet a little sign that says, sam smith pac. this money goes to people like sam smith. great people. now, we can give each of those 40 $5,000. they aren't coordinated, they're not established by a single person. each is independently run. and we know pretty well that that total of $5,000 times 40 will go to sam smith. okay? what does that violate? >> well, there's a couple problems with that hypothetical, your honor. first of all, there are base limits both on what can be given to a pac >> $5,000. >> and on what a pac can give 4 alderson reporting company official subject to final review to a candidate. >> $5,000. so we all have is my $5,000 going to the pac and there happened to be 400 pacs. so 5,000 times -- 4,000. five times 40, five times 400,

and this all traces back to a 1976 ruling called buckley versus valeo. the supreme court's look at the post-watergate reforms. in that ruling the court drew the distinction between government's ability to regulate independent expenditures versus contributions. and a couple of the justices said, you know, why do we still have that? do we have -- should government have that kind of latitude for contributions? and at one point, they were talking about whether actually make it harder for government to restrict contributions. and elena kagan who was the former solicitor general for president obama said wait a minute. what about going the other way? making it harder, you know, making it easier frankly for government to then come in and regulate expenditures. in effect reversing citizens united. and solicitor general don vereli who succeeded her was at the lecturn saying far be from me to go backward which was a nice moment in the courtroom. >> joan, what was the atmosphere like in the courtroom and did you get a sense that any particular justice dominated the

in fact the establishment of our current campaign finance jurisprudence the foundational case was buckley the last where in the court decided that spending limits put too much of a burden on core political speech and therefore spending limits an actual limit on an actual cap on how much anyone can spend in an election of their own money on their own independent speech they said that that could not be kept so that was essentially the decision in the citizens united saying that where justice kennedy found that independent spending wasn't corrupting which is something that we can come back to but however they have never cast a doubt on the importance of contribution limits guarding the financial relationships between big donors and their actual checks directly to candidates or their campaign committees or the political parties because the court does understand that those has understood that those kind of financial relationships are far more open to real corruption concerns moreover it is not the direct to political speech it is actually just association or speech or being able when you contr

europe and australia and i took this for definitions and i plunged into what is going on at buckley is the nature. i just b.c. and all these other people and i said there is absolutely no distinction between what the what the matthew does by these definitions and what the brit book the u.k. banking sector is now in the us to buy but i went next yes but they suppress my evidence they did not but they refused to accept it meaning what but also that. that how did that work exactly you're a former cop or ok you gave evidence and you pointed out to an organized criminal activity a racket i sent them the reports they subsequently lost it did they say it was in the twin towers went to blow i don't know yet how can i justify that they lost it that's that's what they did and eventually because i kept pressing and pressing and pressing that i ventured he got a letter from the chairman of the committee mr tare in which he admitted to me that actually response was we did not want to move to receive your report we were out somebody showed it too late to do certain things with it but we did get your

they're reading stories fleecing or somebody and they're reading the page is they want to hear it or buckley so now instead of really in the pop ed page and they have the new flavor they're turning it on and it's opinion and i'm watching fox will what's it megan kelly be able to stay in the middle or was she was over was she move over will she have to move over them and look at the credit where it was more than the center left and she's moved over there's a lot of group pressure in those places and any place she was there is no i feel i think it's there i mean i think you know your audience you know you're talking to i always know i'm talking to but i also want to i always want to keep i always want to keep the chunk of republicans as well as democrats and i want to cheer you i preach the choir no i say what i feel like saying i write i tried to begin the show for twenty before i taped five i write the end of the show so i get to do two opinion parts of the show the questions our producers will work on but. you know i like to stimulate discussion i am a point of view well i mean like you wer

buckley, jr., began the movement declaring that the magazine stands athwart history yelling stop. hardline conservatives have been yelling stop ever since. john boehner tries to tie into this pattern of opposition saying that the federal government has spent more than what it has brought in in 55 of the last 60 years. but one might respond, what have been the results over these past 60 years? the united states has grown mightedly, destroyed the soviet union and lifted citizens to high standards of living and income. at the end of his 1961 speech that launched his political career, ronald reagan said -- >> if you don't do this and i don't do it, one of these days you and i will spend sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in america when men were free. >> but the menace reagan was warning about, medicare, was enacted. it's provided security to the elderly. there have been problems regarding cost but that's hardly the same thing as killing freedom. after all, the right wing heritage foundation ranks many countries as more free than americ

bill buckley has been flying for decades. as to his personal record. >> 6 hour period i drop 29 times. >> especially now in a 10 hour shift scramble first ask questions later. >> what does this say about the kind of flying you do? >> we bounce a round a lot. >> and often. from sonoma county, wayne, abc 7 news. >> man who saw his brother stab to death after giants game last week is telling the story from the victim perspective for the first time and only to abc 7 news. last week man arrested for the stabbing death of 24-year-old jonathan denver. but he was relessed when san francisco da said there wasn't enough evidence. denver lived worked in forth pwring in mendocino county. laura spoke with his brother and another witness to what happened. >> the kid that took my brother from me so soon should be behind pwaivrments he says he sdaided to tell his story new because he wants justice for his younger brother january thon denver. the dodger fan who was stabbed to death last week after a giants game. >> we are walking up the stree

. >> what the court said in the past in 1976 in the buckley case was that if you give too much to one candidate that could be corrupting. >> reporter: republican alabama businessman sean mccutcheon argues the current limit limits his freedom of speech. >> right now in he -- if he maxed out on the base he could only give to 17 different candidates. what about the 18th or 19th? he says it's not corrupting. >> reporter: in 2010 courts citizen united decisions lifted restrictions on spending for corporations and unions. today he argues people like him shouldn't be limited because of their wealth. >> it gets into the question of what about direct donations? can those are limited the way they've been since 1976? the guessing is is that the court will say no, they can't be limited. >> reporter: a decision is not expected until next year. >> the government argues without the current cap the single donor could reportedly give up to $3.5 million to a party's political candidate's and committees in one election cycle. >>> the family of the woman who rammed her car into a white house barricade be

when they -- i originally testified in the buckley v.allejo hearings when they said they wanted to put the cap on contributions at $1,000. that led to the proliferation of all these ways to get around $1,000. they came up with this great idea the leadership pac. they rammed it through the ethics committee and what it is is a member can take unlimited amounts of money and they can use it as they see fit. they're supposed to use it to give to other members of their party to help their elections. but i have yet to see one that has ever used the majority -- the other thing i will say in my own campaigns i can't tell you the number of times i've had to get family members, i'd go to the candidate and say we can't keep your wife doing this. i mean we're going to get killed. >> so schweitzer's new book, he outlined in his prior book, the stock act which was really almost the same thing. these congress people are trading in front of knowledge that other people don't have, outlined it, went through congress, guess what they found out it was legal,

thanks to the historic blunder of buckley political partisanship is more heavily regulated today than video games and pornography. that is not what the founders intended. the chief justice prefers to be an incremental cost, but now is the time to advance a core constitutional principle. from the boston journal editorial. >> guest: the journal will never forgive john roberts for his vote in the health care case. there was a deep disappointment to the political right, and they are hoping he takes a bolder step in the campaign finance area. as jess bravin was saying, the impulses are to be an incremental us. he is sympathetic to the project of deregulating campaign finance but he is only 58 years old and he is willing to play along game and take a step-by-step and has shown that in the past where he is making a minor step, criticizing the ride. one of his moves judicial minimalism. so this dynamic of the right wanting someone whom they considered there guide, faster and bigger, you see it over and over. >> host: so, what place before the court? what are the options? >> well, the way to r

i want to ask you this, years ago bill buckley, my former boss, coined the phrase in elections you vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. >> right. >> all right? it seems to me in 2010 and 2012 we republicans have not done that. we have ignored this and that's why the party's been hurt. >> in some cases there are a lot of reasons. it's a party that's not overly concerned with winning. it's a party that's overly concerned with making money, self-aggrandizing positions and running a purist conservative in a place where a purist conservative is not going to win. i like christine o'donnell. can you imagine what the democratic party would do to any democrat who tried the primary ridiculously conservative democrat mark pryor in arkansas. they understand these are conservative states. we'll run john tester will fool the hicks, will get a democrat in, we'll have a majority in the senate. why doesn't our base understand that? >> where's the selection process in the republican party? i think this became an issue with the tea party rise, but i think it's been an issue for a long tim

so did bill buckley saw it.d how creepy this world is, understand what it was like to real under a real surveillance state. >> i want to point out i was nowhere near edward snowden when i saw the movie and could not be held culpable in this. juan, your thoughts? >> i was watching gary johnson and dennis kucinich. there is no suggestion americans are being spied on. the suggestion the n.s.a. is doing that, that is not real. >> what? >> n.s.a. spying on americans. >> they collect people's phone records. >> what we're talking about here is affecting foreign governments. with regard to merkel and to all these that there's a sent the united states has superior technology, as peter was saying, and with some wounded ride. you can't ask people to stop spying. that's not reasonable or remarkal, and to say to president obama we should cut back now? i think he is right to say he ordered a review. they're going to have a review because there are things we are technological capable of dog enough that maybe we shouldn't do. b