buckley. guest: morning, greg. caller: currently the judicial branch -- 10 they only serve in a reactive role? guest: that is correct. caller: what would it take for the judicial branch to become more proactive and take a more active role in all this? guest: i don't know that you want them to.\ the judges, the federal bench wisely abstains from political decisions. you wouldn't want them to take charge. the battle between congress and the presidency -- it would be ias inor them to have a b favor of congress, but when it comes to actual policies, what we prefer would be neutrality. the desire to see that the rules are observed and nothing more than that. host: virginia. mary an outline for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i feel that the is the threat to our democracy is a partisan supreme court that is now ruling in favor of corporations, money for the rich people to give unlimited amounts. that is what you should be writing about. and i would like to ask you -- i keep hearing about ob

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 pac's 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 buckley. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, your honor. >> general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: aggregate

recall the plaintiff in buckley vs. vallejo, senator buckley was not nominated by either of the two major parties and it was precisely that sort of candidate, one outside of that establishment, that felt the burdens of that wave of reform the most. we care first and foremost about grassroots and local activity by ordinary citizens and believe that mccain-feingold, has reached too far into late and local politics and push activists outside parties. it has federalized allstate and local party programs which brings you to the 2014 political landscape. artificially low levels that do not match the rate of inflation that's occurred sin they were first instituted. for example, the $10,000 in state party limits should be if adjusted for inflation about $48,000. in addition to regular inflation, the cost of campaigning has skyrocketed. particularly due to the cost of television advertising. other prophylactic measures have been struck by the courts except those that limit political parties to effectively assist their candidates

you gov back to buckley v. valeo they looked at these issues and they found for the reasons that i described that disclosure not just contribution that independent expenditures was in the public interest. again why? because voters have a public interest in knowing who was spending millions of dollars to try to influence their vote because transparency provides for the anticorruption safeguard and as i said because it also allows greater ability to enforce other parts of campaign finance law like our law prohibiting foreigners and foreign corporations from spending money in u.s. elections. by the way a foreign election can contribute to a 501(c)4 so disclosure helps us in force that. right now how do you know whether the 501(c)4 is not using the foreign corporations for political purposes? again that's one of the three main reasons courts have talked about in disclosure in citizens united for eight of the nine supreme court justices also talk more broadly about disclosure way beyond contributions to political ca

buckley. guest: morning, greg. caller: currently the judicial branch -- 10 they only serve in a reactive role? guest: that is correct. caller: what would it take for the judicial branch to become more proactive and take a more active role in all this? guest: i don't know that you want them to.\ the judges, the federal bench wisely abstains from political decisions. you wouldn't want them to take charge. the battle between congress and the presidency -- it would be ias inor them to have a b favor of congress, but when it comes to actual policies, what we prefer would be neutrality. the desire to see that the rules are observed and nothing more than that. host: virginia. mary an outline for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i feel that the is the threat to our democracy is a partisan supreme court that is now ruling in favor of corporations, money for the rich people to give unlimited amounts. that is what you should be writing about. and i would like to ask you -- i keep hearing about ob

bill buckley went there. bill buckley went there. >> guest: yes, but he'd been gone a long time. at yale, the two impacts were there were a number of excellent teachers, mostly in the english department, but i had some others in other fields. also, at yale, there were a number of very active and intelligent and contrary conservatives. yale has a political union which is divided into parties across the political spectrum. i joined the party of the right, and this was a very fraternal, independent sort of organization, and a lot of the friends i made there i still have, still work with them. c-span: was there a club? >> guest: well, it wasn't a literal club, but it had a lot of club-like aspects to it. c-span: are you a traditional conservative, interested in social issues, or are you a libertarian conservative? >> guest: half and half. i really couldn't put myself in either camp. i wouldn't want to lose the other one. c-span: if somebody asked you to write a definitive paper of 500 words about a conservative ideological issue that meant the most to you, what would you write about?

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 -- -- >> general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- aggregate limits combat corruption. let me start by explaining exactly how

buckley, do you want me to -- >> is that what you want? >> mr. hastings -- >> put mr.astings back in his chair until we are concluded. >> or? >> hold on until i'm done -- >> i thought you said they weren't supposed to react? >> sit down! >> judge wulle warns hastings his behavior won't help him later. >> you're really helping your case in front of the court of appeals. they're going see your record, they're going to see how you're running your mouth, your honor. bye-bye, we know how to handle kids like you, son? okay, yeah, they're going to see that too. remember, you're on record, just like me, pops. >> finally, the judge gets in the last word, sentencing hastings to the maximum, 120 years in prison. >> all right, thank you, gentleman. in my world, i deal with nothing but ugly features of the human personality. i have to find ways to not let that affect the work i'm doing, so i can provide the next person coming into the courtroom with a fair environment. >>> coming up, a lawyer is shot. a defendant goes for a gun. and there are cries of shock and horror in the courtr

and frank buckley author of the "once and future king" the rise and fall of crown government. we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twit. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the house and senate return from recess on monday. we join by billy house of national journal. the house getting to work almost right away on a couple of fiscal year 2515 appropriation -- 2015 appropriations bill. in that is an extension of pay freeze. do you expect to hear any opposition. >> there has been some lonely voices who say it's time. lord help them. maybe it's time to alter that. this is an midterm election year. one of the odd positions that a lot of members might take on campaign trail is they need more money. >> one of the pieces in the past week was headlined in the national journal. house republicans see opportunity in appropriations bill about some of the possibilities of adding policy writers to the spending bills. >> the top line spending levels will be set. color battles to be fought within the appropriations bills themselves. t

what has changed since buckley?>> your honor the statute has changed significantly to impose base limits on the parties on both a state and federal parties. it has changed to prohibit proliferation of political committees. one of the concerns and buckley was the dairy industry which contributed to hundreds of pacs supporting president nixon's re-election. >> these were all created by the dairy goodness ration of the nixon campaign? >> as i read the lower court decision in buck way that is correct. in addition you also have a thick volume of code of federal regulations of the federal election commission which did not exist at the time of ugly. >> thank you council counsel. >> thank you your honor. >> general forelli. >> may it please the court. let me start by explaining. aggregate limits combat corruption both by blocking circumvention of individual contribution limits and equally fundamentally by serving as a bulwark against the campaign finance system dominated by massive individual contributions in which the dang

buckley about politics, he has to use the republican party. neither of us like it, a huge distance to travel before this becomes a real conservative party, but we have to use the means that are available to us and be prague mat eke and real liz take and work through the gradual mechanics of social change. that spirit is new. after goldwater, the spirit of the movement, and with reagan, you know it's a political fact in the larger quality of the larger culture, but the 40s and 50s, you see a transition. how does one be both conservative and strategic? thars the question they posed. >> what do you teach at catholic university? >> 20th century american history, literature, and grade book stuff. >> is this your first back? >> wee. >> conservative turn, name of the book, publishedly harvard university press, michael kimmage is the author, and here is the cover.

coming off the bench -- >> congress isn't -- -- >> with the understanding that your answer is -- buckley has settled that issue; no more discussion necessary. >> the -- the risk -- we -we think the risk of corruption is real. and we think it's in fact profound when you are talking about the kinds of contributions that can be made if you take -you take the lid off on aggregate contributions. if it -- if justice scalia's critique of the situation proves correct and it is deeply disabling to candidates and parties, congress can address that by changing the contribution limits. >> and general, i suppose that if this court is having second thoughts about its rulings that independent expenditures are not corrupting, we could change that part of the law. >> and far be it from me to suggest that you don't, your honor. >> well, if it's interrelated. but the -- the record, as far as i recall it from several years ago, talked about at length -- i don't like to use the word "corrupting"; i like to use integration, "integrity of the process," that notion of getting people to think that their first am

the supreme court in buckley said, it is not irrational, it is common sense that people will believe that huge contributions are intended to buy access, influence, results and that people who take them are in some way being bought. so that's why the court in buckley said, it makes perfectly good sense to limit the size of contributions to candidates and party commeemplets because -- committees because of the perception, danger and perception that there is a transaction. so if you have an unlimited contribution that is fully disclosed, you still have the million dollars coming in. even the question i think will be for the justice stevens' question s. what about people who don't have a million dollars? they don't get to buy any access or influence? but that's been the justification for the contribution limits. the debate has been what size should they be? the assumption has been that those contributions will be disclosed and as far as we know they are all fully disclosed, but that the independent expenditures that the court allowed in the buckley decision, which the court said were not

post i'm such a fine just been made up of may at that closely resembles our own the storm but thomas buckley is part of the discovery team the arm while and then frowned upon at the same sizes. i received a similar amount of energy to walk the earth receives the oldest very different stop so happens to them in a twin when we discovered a cousin scientists don't know anything about the atmosphere of the so called capital one eight six. it will be a target for future tennis tips that can scan the telco chemicals that may be linked to life the other. dozens of christians have gone to jerusalem like they do every easter to commemorate according to tradition the death of jesus christ by walking that the donor awesome. they will follow the same reason that jesus is believed two of warped parent is close to where he was crucified. the church of the police of poker which opened its doors to pilgrims from all over the world on friday. he said by christians to be the size of christ's crucifixion in the philippines cufflinks to make it themselves and carried a wooden crosses re enacting the last hours

host: our guest is frank buckley, a professor of law at george mason university.to join our conversation this morning host: i want to ask you about more details in the book. you say that separation of powers is not the best idea. n't thewell, it wasbn primary idea between -- behind what the framers wanted. to imagine what it would be ,ike, imagine the 2012 election with the election thrown to the house of representatives. different president. they thought the president would be more accountable to congress and they didn't expect the rise of the great federal state. they didn't see the great regulatory state in the offing. they thought the executive would be thin. the executive would be charged with defending the country is invaded, but not a lot more than that. the government has changed, and the institutions, the presidencies change with it. host: first call is nancy in los angeles on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. guest: hello, nancy. caller: hi, how are you? guest: good. caller: i think the congress has ceded power to the president. what do you t

your answer is, buckley has settled that issue. no more discussion necessary. >> we think the risk of corruption is real. and we think it is profound when you talk about the kind of admissions that is made when you take the cap of of aggregate contributions. if it is deeply disabling to candidates and parties, congress can address that by changing the contribution limits. >> i suppose that if this course is having second thoughts about its rulings that expenditures are not corrupting, we can change that part of the law . [laughter] >> and far be it for me to recommend that you don't. >> the record, as far as i recall it from several years ago, talked about at length -- i don't like to use the word corruption, but integrity of the process. when it got to this part, to be -- the aggregate, it was about circumvention. there is a huge corruption aspect to this. we don't have a lot of in the record about that. >> with respect to my,, this is a very close parallel. >> if you are really talking -- they don't think about it that way. so th

and i know that we have here brian chu, jeff buckley from the mayor's office of housing. we look forward to working in the near future to come up with a proposal around this issue. ~ mayor's office i know there is a short time, so, turn it over to public comment. and if i may, i'd like to begin by asking the dean of usf law school, john [speaker not understood] who is here. dean [speaker not understood], thank you very much for taking time out of your schedule to be here. i know that we're giving each person two minutes. so, dean. >> i thought it was one minute. i want to thank you for your leadership and the comments of public defender this morning. it is a very important issue. you heard about the measurement of the quality of need in san francisco. another is the quality of the resolution of disposition of cases. you, this board has led the way for tenant protections, both tenant protections if there is not a lawyer there to make sure those are carried out in court, it's as if you didn't pass them. i happen to serve on a jury, a three-day trial, a [speaker not understo

there was an element trying to take over the conservative movement and under the leadership of bill buckley we fended them off and they are known as libitarians today. they are back stronger than every. we don't agree on all of the issues, but i think it is important for conservatives to find common ground with them. and i think the governors in senate as well. i have seen a finer conservative run for major office. and the governor running in virginia this past november and a libitarian ran against him and got 7% of the vote. that is outrage. in order to have a strong united base, i think the conservatives would be advised to look and come back to washington and take a good look at rand paul. rand paul has a large following. the young people out there as well. if you bring a ticket like that it can be unbeatable. >> harry campo. >> good to see you. >> my question is you refer to a traffic jam on the conservatives. isn't that part of the problem? in affect the last three or four election cycles we have had 3-4 strong conservative candidates who split the vote on the right allowing the single

and some, such as the late jeff buckley's 1994 recording of "hallelujah" are all three. ♪ and from yourl >> pelley: and that's the cbs evening news for tonight. for all of us at cbs news all around the world, good night. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org+++ath0 >>> your realtime captioner is linda macdonald. in c n with the 20-10 san bruno pipeline disaster -- killed 8 people. but days ahead of >>> pg&e now facing federal criminal charges in connection with the 2010 san bruno pipeline explosion disaster that killed 8 people but days ahead of the indictment, the utility was already hard at work pouring up the pr machine. good evening, i'm elizabeth cook. >> i'm allen martin in for ken bastida. pg&e addressed the charges immediately -- sort of. the top brass recorded their comments in advance and then sent them to us in an email. our phil matier on the story. phil, pg&e clearly not wanting to be in the position of having to answer any questions about this. >> reporter: that's right. because we actually have a couple of cases moving forward

buckley jr., al gregory, phyllis schlafly, newt gingrich, and ralph reed. this is about 45 minutes. >> as we begin now want to point out one aspect. our guest is also a part-time fox news commentator. millions of americans, of course, no bill o'reilly as the factor. valerie, and this case, has been a factor long before the factory was cool. john c. west professor of international politics and american government at the citadel, the host and co-founder of the new york meeting, and nationally recognized gathering of elected officials among journalists, business leaders, and conservative authors in new york city and also founded the charleston meeting which meets in south carolina. he previously opted the new york times best-seller which she is too modest to advertise, shadowboxes government unions control america and rob the taxpayers blind. a member of the council on foreign relations and served as vice chairman of the council on foreign relations task force on terrorism financing and is frequently testifying on chair financing, regulation of the financial-s

to take over the conservative movement and the republican party and under the leadership of bill buckleywe fended off these people and they are identified today as libertarians. we had a battle with them and conservatives prevailed. the libertarians are back stronger than ever and in many ways that is a good thing. there are many things we do agree on and i think that is important for conservatives to find common ground. and i think if we don't do that it's going to be difficult for us to win as well as many governors and senate elections. in my lifetime i haven't seen a finer principle that a conservative run for a major office began running for governor in virginia this past november to end a libertarian candidate rathe libertariancandd got 7% of the vote as an outrage in my opinion. so, in order to have a strong united voting because we can, i think conservatives would be advised to look to come back for the vice presidential nomination and take a good look at rand paul. he i has a large following of young people out there. you brin bring a ticket togethee that and i think that it can

school constitutional law applicable to campaigns and at that time i predicted there's a case called buckley v. deleo which is a supreme court decision equated contributions. once you go down that road then you open it lunch of doors that shouldn't be open in american politics. people don't really think -- if you have hideaway sayeth, i don't know anybody who thinks we need more money in the politics of the united states. the corporations it's even worse because a corporation would violate its duties to which shareholders if it gave a political contribution without expecting something in return. that's just wrong. >> that's just wrong. in other other words or corporation has a duty to the shareholders and there are representing a friday of public reason the only rationale the only legal fiduciary justification is that the company is doing something and it's economic profit interest by giving a contribution. is that what we are all about in this country? >> maher let me push back and take the opposite view. i'm an individual and i gave a cap to the candidate. what is being changed by the ruli

here's what the sprem court said in buckley with respect to disclosure of both direct contributions to campaigns and independent expenditures. i quote: disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. a public armed with information about a candidate's most generous supporters is better able to detect any postelection special favors that may be given in return. in citizens united, eight of the nine supreme court justices, including justices roberts, kennedy, scalia, and alito, found that disclosure requirements for independent spending groups, quote, do not prevent anyone from speaking, end quote, and serve the important public interest of, quote, providing the electorate with information about elected related spending sources, end quote. they said, this -- again i quote -- allows voters to make informed decisions in the political marketplace. as aeis norm -- it is clear from justice kennedy's opinion that disclosure was a key factor in unlocking the rest of the citizens un

buckley jr. politics--he says we have to use the republican party. neither us like it we don't think eisenhower is a conservative a huge distance traveled before this becomes a conservative party but we need to use the means available and the pragmatic and realistic and work through the gradual mechanics of social change. that spirit is quite new. after goldwater becomes the spirit of the conservative movement and this becomes a kind of political fact in the larger culture. it is the 40s and 50s you see this transition. how does one both the conservative and strategic? that is the question. >> host: what do you teach? >> 20th century american history, literature, a little bit of great books. >> host: is this your first book? >> guest: yes. ..

quote a roundtable in the week ahead in congress with reuters correspondent jeff mason and frank buckley, the author of the "once and future king -- the rise and fall of crown government" discusses the growth of executive howard the american government. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> next, a discussion about al qaeda and the -- al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and efforts by the u.s. and its allies to eliminate the threat will stop this is 40 minutes. 2. >> "washington journal" continues. is philip mudd, who served as the fbi deputy director on national security and the cia deputy director on counterterrorism. thanks very much for being with us. guest: good morning from on having -- from manhattan. host: airstrikes in yemen killing 40 al qaeda militants in two days. what is happening. -- happening? guest: i think you are seeing a fundamental transition in the war on terror. responsibilities were point targets. individual operational leaders of al qaeda in the western parts of pakistan. what is happened is a transition fro

the sem nal finance campaign case from 1976, buckley versus vallejo.y cover overruled that fine pline between contribution and expenditures. >> campaign money is a form of free speech giving it first amendment protection. but with one very important caveat. politicians could spend as much money as they want campaigning. but when it comes to donors cutting a check to a single politician, decades ago the court decided a cap must exist to prevent political corruption. this week's decision shows the court is chipping away at that 38-year-old ruling, as well as decades of campaign finance legislation. >> essentially the only [inaudible] that the court is willing to accept appears to be the narrowest definition of corruption. quid quo quo, essentially bribery. >> the bay area is all too familiar with bribery allegations following the arrest of leland yee. from sacramento to d.c., leaders are redefining what it is to have good government free of corruption. >> you gain special access, that is not corruption. >> the professor also said this is the same old sto

united was decided, we were in a mess with campaign finance and can't we go farther and reverse the buckley vallejo decision and restore the right of the people to limit campaign funding? also, it's not just corporations to limit the right of wealthy individuals to control elections. >> the answer is yes. i mean, that's -- >> but how? >> that's what public funding of electrics is about. public funding of elections. people say tax dollars are being used for elections. that makes a lot more sense when we limit the amount than having the billionaires buy elections. and it's hard stuff of the we have to figure it out. how do you create a situation where a serious candidate who has support -- not anybody can jump up, can then run an election, knowing that he or she has a certain amount of money, enough money to get the word out, without having to spend half his or her life raising money. now, by the way, one of the other dangerous things that this citizens united decision does, the other side of it is, is that the good guys have to keep up. and i will tell you -- and it's no great secret. in was

back from the buckley case on to today.going to strike down all limitations then they're fools. the court is setting this up to happen. there's nothing you can do except pass a constitutional amendment to stop this kind of stuff. and i'm pretty sure with barack obama being in the last three years of his presidency and the republicans controlling the house, that's probably not going to house. so what's going to happen in the 2016 elections is very simple. we're going to be outspent from a super pac and a big money perspective. and there's not a thing in the world we can do about it. we just have to stuck it up and try to get our positive message out. >> thank you both for you time this evening. still ahead, fighting hate. voters are rising up against a small town mayor who sympathized with the white supremacist accused in that deadly shooting rampage. also, why are some conservatives trying to roll back the clock and gut the greatest victories of the civil rights movement? i take prilosec otc each morning for my frequent hea

law, the regulation after watergate is challenged in court, the case is noted buckley versus valeo andhe opinion in 1976 in that case, the supreme court decision says that, yes, it is ok, you can put limits on contributions me the donor giving to the candidate. you can put this overall limit like this aggregate limit like in mccutcheon, the court said there is a real interest in protecting against corruption and the appearance of corruption. the kind of corruption was on the watergate scandal in many instances before that. that is sort of the bed rock of the system we have now. and what we have seen since 1976, practically, is a systematic effort by conservatives and libertarians to demolish that bedrock. >> andy kroll, how this will affect the states individually? >> there are a dozen states that have similar overall limits on the books. and those limits are about to be destroyed. it is just a matter of time before the attorney general in the election administrators says coppa well, our limits are constitutional, too. ins decision will resonate congress and elsewhere. >> andy kroll, t

buckley, the man known as the father of modern american conservatism, wrote a column after column writing that drug prohibition causes more problems than it prevents, but still today, it is left to fox news to stand afort history yelling, stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so. yesterday the journal of neuroscience published a column that linked drug use to brain abnormalities. it was big news on fox last night, and i will admit, i believe it was skeptical because of their deep concerns for the brains of young marijuana smokers in this country. because if that were the case, they might have noted that other substances, such as alcohol, are also known to damage the brain as well. i'm guessing they were more concerned about the brains of a certain constituency in their audience, that is particularly agitated by the growing acceptance of marijuana. a group of people who see the legalization of pot as yet another part of the seismic change that has come in obama's america. along with a rising demographic that will eventually create a white minority. and it's precisely for that reaso

james buckley, won a u.s.ht, running only on the conservative party line and was a republican before, that he was able to defeat, and a democrat. in 1993, rudy giuliani was endorsed by the liberal party line as well as the republicans. liberals made the difference delivering about 62,000 votes for giuliani, more than his official winning margin over david dinken at the time. according to the swing state parties, working family parties, one of three parties that pull weight in new york, have provided the margin of victory in five house races in the past 12 years. how unusual is this system? it only exists in seven states. it's only practiced in five. new york, of course, is the biggest one. and the other 43 states, it's not only off the table, it's actually banned outright. so the question is, is this healthy for political parties or not? joining me now a little bit of a coalition of source, syracuse mayor, stephanie minor, and dan cantor, the executive director of the working families party. so, let me start w

buckley's dismissing of keynesian economics to the present day.s has been on display during the obama presidency. perhaps you've seen one of these charming posters which seasonally summed up the opposition to health care reform. more recently we -- discussing inequality is class warfare we're told. the people at the very top have earned their success. they're the makers and you're just jealous. to suggest anything else is downright unamerican. there's just one problem. concern for inequality is in fact deeply american. in our real battle with communism, we actually focused our economic rhetoric, not on how awesome inequality is but on how broadly the rewards of our economic system are actually shared. take a look at this amazing economic propaganda video celebrating the aagalaterian system. >> another dramatic answer to the question of america's distribution of wealth was given by a russian communist who visited america. >> who owns all these automobiles? >> the employees in the plant. >> that cannot be. they are chained to their capitalist machin

maybe they are not sop independent but the supreme court in the buckley versus volareo opinion in the 1970's is says we treat independent expect tours differently to contributions to office holders which inevitably raised the appearance of the corruption and the reality of corruption. it's certainly appropriate we're learning about the death of charles keating who threw his money around not only to influence lawmakers and other party committees and we saw the kind of corruption and cost to taxpayers that can happen when you have the loopholes. the supreme court had a fun time with the loopholes. >> sreenivasan: erin, what about the idea that at this point someone can write a $2600 check to every democrat or republican in the country and another $10,000 check to every political action committee or party. >> first of all the fact that the limit on contributions to any one candidate is $2600 reflects congress's judgement that giving that amount is not corrupting. if that's the case it doesn't make a lot of sense to suggest if you give that amount to 100 candidates versus one you somehow

back in one thousand nine hundred seventy six it had been reference previous to that but buckley really nailed it that that somehow the supreme court was discovering that money was protected by the first amendment and i don't recall having seen the word money anywhere in the first amendment and they've just been amping this up and amping this up and amping this up what are your thoughts on that and where do we go from here. i think it's a travesty to our from. ending fathers and interpretation of the constitution and the sacred rights we're trying to protect in the first amendment it is corruption in terms of an interpretation and it's basically launching us on a path perhaps to become like russia a few oligarchs run the country in concert with their chosen leader and that's kind of where we're headed here this is really a very very very dangerous decision by this court and especially with the deregulation of the media in this country where one person is allowed to basically own as much of the media as he or she wishes and dominate as much of a market is he or she wishes as one of sixte

buckley on the federalist society of the institute for humane studies at george mason university provide internships and seminars for budding conservative academics and future jurors. the list goes on. with the support of foundations with many familiar names. out, while this movement to build a choir of young, ideological lawyers, journalists , congressional staff, and voters has been a central priority of the right, very few social scientists have studied the effort to mobilize the students or to examine just how the students experience their undergraduate life in the first place. this has left us in an odd situation of not knowing if the accusations leveled against the university's resonate with the students on his behalf vermeil, nor do we know what to anything else about the students such as when and how did they become conservative? were under political turning points? both before and during college. one of the issues that they care about, and how did these differ from their elders? who do conservative students know in a larger world of conservative thought and politics? we have als

buckley on the federalist society of the institute for humane studies at george mason university provide internships and seminars for budding conservative academics and future jurors. the list goes on. with the support of foundations with many familiar n

they've been clear going back to buckley v. valeo, that giving money to candidates is a speech activity and is entitled to a wide variety of protections. it's then up to congress to make the rules to mitigate against that. so like the thing justice briar described, congress could pass a law prohibiting the campaigns from giving money to each other. steve, do you see legislative action that's likely to come in response to this trying to restore some sort of limits on campaigns? >> that was the republicans in charge of the house i think joining this lawsuit. but i think it raises the interesting question, too, clarence thomas -- >> he wanted to go further. >> right. he was saying not only did they say that money is speech and politics, they upheld limits. do away with those limits altogether. >> i'm afraid that's where things are headed. as you and all up against the clock fans know, this saturday it is championship saturday. >> go, krystal! >> i, krystal ball, will go up against kate and alex. i am favored, of course. >> going d

with reuters corespondent jeff mason and national journal correspondent shane goldmatcher and frank buckley, author of "the once and future king, rise and fall of crown government" discusses the growth and power in american government. as always we will take your calls and can you join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> when you are living in a world where you do not have monopolies anymore and you have multiple companies competing for options on tv, for example, that does not work when the laws were written for a monopoly negotiation. that is one of the reasons why consumers do not have as many options as they could have and why the prices are still going up for your television video services when they should be going down. >> there is a whole lot of competition between completely different kinds of companies. when you are watching tv, it used to be you watched tv or had a cable provider. now there is everything from cell phone companies offering cable services to satellite companies to just doing it over your internet wit

to just move on the kits were important not to meet organize the presidential action leslie said buckley is also where you couldn't organize all the introductions because actually treaty needed to reboot of the elite force base will not change at all every person in the government but to want us to understand that this parliament was supporting the regime for unwary long time. and if people are not gone they're still there is just that they decided to switch sides of course the moment but nobody knows there might be just undermining things anywhere we have one viewer who's asking for another election today saying in eastern ukraine people a referendum clearly you want to promote democracy a referendum is the best way. well for the next aid station right now is that when we say ukraine doesn't happen all on the regional referendum. and this is the problem of what happened the crimea because it was completely condition that to the point of your ukraine. so i waited in a principal. in principle it could be organized i think i need it could be done as it is the risk off the cliff has to be o

thatu agree with buckley speech and money are the same, this was a consistent decision. consequences of that decision, we live with in the concept forest mess between policy and money. it is unhealthy. it is unwholesome. legislations our -- legislatures and/or congress. i would just say to you, while i do not see in my crystal ball a short term solution for this, it is the one thing that will make a huge difference to the way we do public policy, and probably have a big effect on all of the other issues. so i will stop there. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. i had a crystal ball and i was going to bring it with me this morning. as i was looking at it, i did not see a reason to. i saw marion barry and the mayor crack, and itking got all cloudy. it started to dissipate a little bit, and i saw a tweet from anthony weiner, who lost the primary to glossy oh in new york, and i was afraid to read it. so i am going to abandon that. however, i want to up broach this panel a little differently today. i know we have many panelists here who are going to talk about the candidat

william buckley is joining us. what is the latest in what can you give us about what is going on right now, bill? >> i think the governor said it well. we have multiple tornadic storms in progress across northeast alabama and this is far from over. in addition to tornadoes, we also expect very large hail, damaging straight line winds and flooding. this is a multithreat a afternoon and it will continue into the evening hours. >> and not just in mississippi but where else? >> extending into middle portion of tennessee and eastern missouri and as far northwest as into iowa. so this is covering a large area and unfortunately the same will be true as we move into tuesday and wednesday. so we have at least two more days before this weather system begins to move off the coast. >> and the tornadoes are ranked according to their severity. how powerful are these. >> it's difficult to say right now. they are obviously significant. to really assess the intensity, you've got to get out and do a ground and even aerial survey. th