how is the buckley system affecting our campaign finance system. we have different classes of people that individuals and parties -- candidates and parties are treated one way, and individuals and interest groups are treated in another way, where they are unconstrained. what that makes, makes the candidates and the parties really nervous, right? so they have to -- in order to deal with the prospect, might not even be in this particular election. the possibility that there might be a bunch of outside money that comes in, they worry about it, maybe this makes them more be holden to the contributors, maybe it makes them more be holden to voters. maybe they have to make sure they can get the voters on their side. it makes them spend more time worrying about their situation and what they can do to make election more likely. >> with that, we'll conclude this panel. i want to remind people in the room and people viewing on c-span that you can get more information from our organizations at the center for competitive politics. it's campaignfreedom.org. and

system. i don't think it's likely. i think in a sense buckley, it's not that at some mutable, i think it's the opponents of the laws that it is today through changes on the supreme court have the votes. what they're more likely to do is to go after corporate as opposed to individual expenditures rather than to reverse buckley out right, but when you think of this, this this is a decision that has been wobbling for years because there has been so much debate, and more than debate, so much disdain in academia. joe gore, one of the people who argued the case for senator buckley and senator mccarthy have said that it's been treated as a stain, a stain by academics. that's true. that's also true of citizens united. it doesn't make them right, but that is the way they viewed it. and yet, it stood and stood. it's sort of like rocky getting up again. at some point people stop getting it. i think we may be there on buckley, but not not on citizens united. >> i focus briefly on the part of buckley that could be challenge. just last year we had every democ

jolted the bulldozer behind which they startled commander buckley saw refuge and concussion from nearby detonations russia -- ruptured the sprinkler system in hanger two, soaking the men inside but damaging little. several miles behind the ciara, the next group of nine aircraft made a similar approach. however, buffeted by wind and dismayed by the tracers arching skyward, he had seen enough and aborted, opting to reset, circle for altitude, and try again. below, the americans were jubilant at having driven off the attack noting that the aircraft in both groups trailed gasoline as they escaped to the north. neither was the tenant -- hara impressed as he circled from a distance. the bombing attack was still to follow. meanwhile, the reprieve on the ground was short-lived. seeing no american fighters from his position, the lieutenant ordered his nine fighters from the carrier to renew the strafing attack, which, ironically, american firefighters had facilitated. the columns of smoke coming out onlye hangers provided minimal interference. command shuttered -- shuddered at the site of american antiaircraft fire. nevertheless, he damaged or de

system arrives sunday. ?did you make a new years resolution to get healthier this year? kolo 8 news nows chris buckley talked with a local fitness expert about how to keep your goals in sight. "exercise is about 20 percent and food and nutrition and stress levels is about 80%" camie cragg fitness offers classes and training programs for all fitness and intensity levels... and here they take the same individualized approach to nutrition. "every person is a different person with food so a lot of the time there is stable macros and micros caloric intake but really waht it comes down to is that persons digestive system and that persons allergies so lately what i've been doing is asking people about their blood type." she says is all about finding a balance "so your'e looking for just the right amount of sugars, the fibers, the proten, all the essential minerals and theres a balance between the protens and the carbs and essentail fats and that calls for variets, fruts, vegetables, some lean meats." and a good place to start... is a diet of 40 percent carbs, 40 percent proten and 2o percent essential fats.

those things go back to buckley versus valeo. >> well, if the essence is survived the distinction between contributions and spending, what is your view of it today? did we get a system for years back that was good and has survived because it is a good system? or have they made a mess of the law 40 years ago and we have a mess of it, strange situation today where i could spend $10 million to support it and that is free speech, but if i want to give him $10,000, that violates. it seems likeit seems like a strange distinction. what is your view? >> i think the distinction is peculiar because if we were starting with a blanka blank slate in 1974 knowing what the constitutional principles are you could ask the question, what were congress pass knowing what was going to be unconstitutional and it certainly would never have devise a system of the sort that exists today which is the residue of what congress did pass but after it had gone through constitutional cleansing at the supreme court. and i think that would have been true even back in buckley time. if congress had passed a law that would impose limits and still allow for unlimited independent spending, buckley made t

system moves into western nevada by early evening. however, models are and snowboard school season today. about 14-hundred students hitting the slopes. kolo 8 news nows chris buckley has the story. "i love snowboarding" "hows the snow? good." took to the slopes at sky tavern for opening day sunday. "we have great weather we

system is coherent. probably what we've seen over time is something willingness on the part of reform groups to live within the constitution, constraints of buckley and that's what's led to this sort of fits of reform. the other thing i think buckley has changed or what would be different if there had not been buckley is that probably political parties would be much stronger and much more in control of their candidates, much more influential over their candidates. and so that would probably be a big difference as well. >> has gone ask you about what do you think the impact would've been on parties. could you give us a reason why do you think the parties would be stronger under that scenario? >> the parties are a source of resources, of brand names. and so if candidates are less free to raise their own resources, make their own brand, then have to rely on the parties more. and, therefore, you will see more party discipline. and you would see more powerful parties in the u.s. like you see in european countries. it wouldn't be a ted cruz. he couldn't exist, for good or ill, he couldn't exist. and so that's probably a big difference is that charismat

fred described, what they are learning in our educational system is essentially what feels good to be the policy. again if you read the buckleyk about "the unmaking of a mayor" that i find so interesting is him trying to struggle to save the people this is why conservatism makes sense but although he is not saying it in that way. this is why people who promise to give you stuff, you know, are not your friends. one line he drops out, which certainly i think should become obvious to new yorkers at that time was, always live -- always look a gift horse in the mouth. so this is the problem that we face. you said and it's interesting what you said is doing a crisis to good governance? .. was there ever a movie version established because that is really terrifying portraits of new york. but, clearly this is what we face and trying to describe and remind people and many of these people simply were not here, what that world is like is difficult questions? yes, sir. [inaudible] >> you raise an interesting question about the change that has occurred in a way in which liberals tend to respond to public conditions and you made the point

buckley, jr. once said every individual is different from every other individual in every conceivable way. harris: amen. >> that is what we should be teaching our children, identity politics, group systementally antithetical to basic human freedom. it impedes our progress and barrier to communication. so i think the whole thing is nothing but junk. and therefore every dollar spent on it is dollar not teaching some student math or science or something else. harris: amen. andrea: wasn't the goal to integrate so we're not all different. harris: thank you, thank you. andrea: isn't that what martin luther king talked about? harris: absolutely, andrea. andrea: why are we doing reversal? harris: i'm not sure why we're infat eighted by the be infatuated about this. i love you no malter what you say. i have biracial children this is crazy to me. this is offensive. >> you're exactly right. universities spun off into parallel universe. we've seen it in case after case. i think it calls into question the fundamental role of the university in american life when they put up with this sort of thing. for goodness sakes, we're under enormous pressure. let's educate people. not distract them. andrea: ho

buckley did that i see how it effects elections is it's restrained the contributions placed, placed on candidates and parties but it allowed expenditures to be unlimited. and so what we have is a system that we still have today where there's a lot of money that's interested and that wants to make its voice heard, that wants to express its view. people want to express their view and they often need money to express that view. but then there are limits to the ways that that money can be expressed through candidates. and so candidates, they're interested in having money. it's like taking someone who is thirsty and telling them you can have as much water as you want but you can only have a teaspoon at a time. we see candidates spending a lot of time raising money because they want to have that money to run for the election. and we have a lot of people that want to give the money, but it's restrained in the ways that they can give it because of the potential corruptioning influence of direct contributions. so we have a system where there's a lot of money in the system, but it's hard -- candidates end up spending a long time, we often think about it as the permanent campaign. they spend a

buckley versus valeo. >> is the essence has survived the distinction between the spending what is your view of it today? did we get a system that was a good system that survived or has it been sort of a strange situation today where you can spend $10 million to support the candidate and that's free speech what is your view about where we are today? >> i think the distinction is to kill your because if we were starting with a blank slate in 1974 knowing what the constitutional principles are, you could ask the question what would congress passed knowing what was going to be unconstitutional. it is the residue of what the congress did pass and after it had gone through the constitutional cleansing of the supreme court, i think that would have been true even back in buckley. congress had passed the law that would impose limits and still allow for independent spending. buckley made that decision. i don't think when congress revives the law in 1976 after the decision that they quite accepted the significance going forward perhaps in large part because they had to reconstitute everything so quickly because it was a presidential

buckley versus deleo. >> if it had survived between contributions and spenting, what's your view of it today. did we get a system 40 years back that was a good system and has survived because it's a good system or sort of a mess of a law 40 years ago and we have a mess -- we have sort of a strange situation today where as i said, i could spend $10 million to support a candidate and that's free speech but if i want to give him $10,000, that violates the -- seems like a detection? what's your view about that today? >> i think the distinction is peculiar. you could ask the question, what would congress pass knowing what was going to be unconstitutional and it certainly would never have divide a system of a sort that exists today which is the residue of what congress did pass but after it had gone through a constitutional cleaning at the supreme court. it would have been true in buckley time. i don't think after congress revised the law that they quite accepted what the significance, practical significance could be going forward. perhaps in large part because they had to reconstitute everything so quickly because th