no actually it's not i mean buckley viva layo has for thirty five years been the defining case thirty five in terms of the modern well i point i mean this is this is not something that the founders ever would have a budget well before the four buckley there was not a broad attempt to limit the ability of citizens to contribute to candidates and in causes of well there was no number of them there were they in virtually every state there were laws about about how much money. we spent in elections in nineteen zero seven at the silverback that said corporations can't participate in federal elections or any election at all in any way there were some laws but certainly not to the extent that there was after watergate that really triggered a rush to campaign finance regulations by corruption some of them are in thai corruption some of them are pro incumbent some of them are designed to stifle unwelcome speech but just because the supreme court says something is right or is true doesn't mean it is of the supreme court said dred scott the sure the slaves were property of the supreme court's in

well money enabled speech so you're going along with the boston versus what are actual arguably the buckley versus the way her decision of the supreme court that money and speech are the same thing i don't think that the founders ever would have thought that i mean jefferson warned about the danger of overblown influence of wealth bateson warned about it hamilton talked about it twice the federalist papers this is this is this is a pretty radical with early modern with the supreme court has brought this you know actually it's not i mean buckley viva layo has for thirty five years then a defining case thirty five in terms of the modern well i point i mean this is this is not something that the founders ever would have a badge well before or before buckley though if there was not a broad attempt to limit the ability of citizens can contribute to candidates and causes of well there was no number of there were they in virtually every state there were laws about about how much money could. we spent in elections in one thousand and seventy of the children at that that said corporations can't part

. >> mark and from buckley are heading to the movies. you have been raising your son as a single dad all of his life. >> yup, that's right. >> easy, challenging? >> there is always challenges. >> reporter: the number of single households in california has grown by 36% between 2000 and 2010. >> the biggest problem actually has been the travel because, yeah, mom moved out to florida. and -- >> reporter: new census figures show the percentage of californians who live in a nuclear family, a married man and woo man raising their children has dropped again over the last decade to 23.4% of all households. that represents a 10% decline in 10 years. most households have a spectrum of modern living aarrangements, same-sex households, unmarried opposite sex partners, married couples who have no children and single father's like mark buckley. >> what gets the headlines is the deadbeat dads and i don't think you hear enough about the single moms and dads both that are really stepping up to the plate. >> reporter: the hardest part for his son brian is

let's start here with the book on bill buckley's am i this is the first full biography of bill buckley the i kind and a conservative arena but he is the father of conservatism adds it is known today. but a remarkable man. very little is written about him but the first full-scale biography teeseven was there any access? >> every available resource but all the more liberal in his political persuasion it is going to be an irony fascinating of all sides of the coyotes. >> seven who was not liberal is victor davis hampton icn novel. >> this is a remarkable aspect about the extraordinary battles to bring alive warfare in the been to the world that very few people can. because of ancient history the book is a live with that the tell. >> it is a great success. >> inside the criminal insurgency. >> the author with therefore last 10 years has gone inside the drug insurgency in mexico from the gang leaders to the police and tells the inside story what is happening in mexico and the extraordinary upheaval in their society and of course, he tells of from walt angles and you come to the span underst

is the first full biography of bill buckley, um, an icon, of course, of the conservative arena. um, but, and he's really the father of conservativism as it is known today. but a remarkable man, absolutely remarkable man, and very little has been written about him, and this is the first full-scale biography of him. >> did the author have access to any of his library or anything? >> he had access to every available resource. bogus, interestingly enough, is more liberal in his persuasion, so i think it's going to fascinate people on both sides of the aisle. >> well, somebody who is not liberal in their persuasion is an author we've covered often on booktv who is victor dais hanson, but now i see a novel coming out by him. >> and this is his first novel, and remarkable, it is, ability a greek general -- about a greek general. it brings alive warfare in the ancient world that very few people can, and because he knows so much about ancient history, this book is alive with that kind of detail, so it's a fascinating thing for him to do, to write a novel, and i think it's going to be a g

buckley. >> this is the first full biography of bill buckley. an icon of the conservative arena. he was the father of conservatism as it is known today. a remarkable man. very little has been written about him and this is the first full-scale biography. >> did mr. bogus have access to his library? >> he had access to every available resource. interestingly enough he is more liberal and his political persuasions and is an interesting balanced biography that will fascinate people on both sides of the aisle. >> someone not liberal in their persuasion is an offer we cover off and on booktv who is victor davis have been but now i see a novel coming out by him. >> this is his first novel and a remarkable lack about the great creek general and extraordinary battles he fought. it brings a lot of warfare in the ancient world in a way that very few people can and because he knows so much about ancient history this book is a live with

buckley. >> this is the first full biography of bill buckley. an icon of the conservative arena. he was the father of conservatism as it is known today. a remarkable man. very little has been written about him and this is the first full-scale biography. >> did mr. bogus have access to his library? >> he had access to every available resource. interestingly enough he is more liberal and his political persuasions and is an interesting balanced biography that will fascinate people on both sides of the aisle. >> someone not liberal in their persuasion is an offer we cover off and on booktv who is victor davis have been but now i see a novel coming out by him. >> this is his first novel and a remarkable lack about the great creek general and extraordinary battles he fought. it brings a lot of warfare in the ancient world in a way that very few people can and because he knows so much about ancient history this book is a live with that kind of detail. it is a fascinating thing for him to write a nove

measures beaten being controversial banking shares were posting the biggest gains in london that was buckley's bank and in germany that's called us bank the biggest gainers of the day if we move to the u.s. we see the pretty similar picture although not such a high place that has a half of the nasdaq just point two percent that's after the optimism about the reduced risk of greece is the fourth and bank of america is also in the lead financials are also leading the gains you know russia where the r.t.s. games one percent my six percent on wednesday the z.b. bank was the biggest gave up four percent energy shares were also fueling well with more snow fell one percent but mitchell was down to an all percent despite reporting results which beat expectations as it saw its profits almost quadrupled in the first off the theory. that's all we have time for we will be back next hour with an eye opening statement you don't have lights. to. the. question is that so much given to each musician trying to hide from the market the freedom flotilla two point zero four thousand fold palestinian activists from

producing a lot of cash and because of the citizens united decision and in previous ones you know the buckley vs for way oh first national bank versus the audi by the way back to the first national bank of. santa clara county versus other pacific railroad eighty six the string of supreme court decisions and basically said whoever has the cash has to buy the politicians and you can't call it bribery anymore so now that this industry has been created what makes you think that there's any possibility that politicians will be able to resist it i mean these guys are making so much chaos they could yeah and there was a front page story in the new york times yesterday about how obama welcomed the wall street executives to the white house to time and i warm up relations with them before the election campaign starts going because he needs money for it that campaign run thing i can't see you as an alternative it's looking at the european system where leaders there are not immune to the pressures of their financial lobbyists but they have a lot less dependence on them and that's why we're seeing so much

talk money talks no i'm on that's a cliche this is this is a doctrine that the supreme court has with buckley vs the way back in the one nine hundred seventy or eighty eight and it's a it is a modern kind of art that if the founders would have been horrified they would not be horrified at the idea of someone being used keep those e-mail like using it if they're not the richest people there are limits to what they're not throwing out the limits or limits the amount of money because it was a very easy only we know it's never going to be horrified not to be fair they would not be horrified by the idea that someone who's wealthy spending their own money to get a message that they want out they were not you have a story one of them that is something that they would have supported it's in the essence of federalist papers over time where there would be factions factions promoting their different messages change medicine federals that were sent was begging us not to fly in fact he would have thought that it was a salute and as the great accomplishment that it was going to cause a that's wrong that wa

talks come i know i'm on that's a cliche this is a this is a doctrine that the supreme court has with buckley versus fellatio back in the one nine hundred seventy or eighty seats and it's a it is a modern kind of art that that the founders would have been horrified that they would not be horrified at the idea of just i want to use people use it you have like using there's not the richest people there are limits to what they're not throwing out the limits are limits the great amount got her all busy busy with others you only would have us there would not be horrified on the speaker they would not be horrified by the idea that someone who is wealthy spending their own money they get a message that they want out they would not be have started going to that is something that they would have supported it's in the essence of matter number ten where there would be factions factions promoting their different message of change madison federals number ten was begging us not to for in fact known he would have thought that it was just a liberation as the great personal it was going to cause it's wrong it

see that look like people are sold out as opposed to just you know the old william buckley oh well you know what's printf is through and this is the constitutional as opposed to way of a man i really respect as a writer and i mean i did too i could in fact and i used to love watching firing line when did you know that. it but the it has become basically a free for all. bill simmons has died a year ago brilliant guy but. isn't that the essence of at least the wrecking crew that this is just become a free for all that it's the thing is that you have it there were there was in there in the early reagan days especially yes there was a lot of principle a lot of the people in the early reagan ministration were highly principled conservatives and what you saw happening in the by the way this is this is a parallel with the simpson thing happen in the conservative movement is that people discover that there's a lot of money to be made in both in the movement and the end in politics and the wrecking crew you sort of jacket remark as my as my character as a sort of what would you say the virgil t

see that look like people are sold out as opposed to just you know the old william buckley oh well you know let's think this through and this is the constitutional as opposed to a i'm a man i really respect as a writer and i agree i did too i could in fact and i used to love watching for in line with you know it's a. it but the it has become basically a free for all. ages died a year ago brilliant guy but. isn't that the essence of at least the wrecking crew that this is just become a free for all that it's the thing is that you had it there were there was in there in the early reagan days especially yes there was a lot of principle a lot of the people in the early regular ministration were highly principled conservatives and what you saw happening in the by the way this is this is a parallel with the the same same thing happen in the conservative movement is that people discover that there's a lot of money to be made in both in the movement and in politics and the wrecking crew you sort of jacket remark as my as my character as a sort of what would you say to virgil to guide us throug

no one admirers buckley. very few people think it was even close to right. so to allow the court to cobble together a majority, it has not helped build a common intellectual framework. in paris and macomish -- in davis and macomish, in a petitioner's summary, they begin with a great anecdote when janet napolitano was running for governor. she pulled her upon the side and she thanked him for his fund- raising efforts. he had it fundraiser that raised $750,000. she got $750,000 in response. she said, i am quite certain that i am the only democratic governor in the country that george bush held a fund-raiser for. just as kagan said, it seemed like the system promotes more speech all-around. that is a core problem in campaign finance. the justices cannot agree on the basic premise of the doctrine, no balancing test, no choice about the level of scrutiny that will bring agreement. whatever the results in this case, the doctrine will remain highly unstable going forward. this is not doctrine moving toward consensus, but a death match between two competing points o

no one admirers buckley. very few people think it was even close to right. so to allow the court to cobble together a majority, it has not helped build a common intellectual framework. in davis and macomish, in a petitioner's summary, they begin with a great anecdote when janet napolitano was running for governor. she pulled her upon the side and she thanked him for his fund- raising efforts. he had it fundraiser that raised $750,000. she got $750,000 in response. she said, i am quite certain that i am the only democratic governor in the country that george bush held a fund-raiser for. just as kagan said, it seemed like the system promotes more speech all-around. that is a core problem in campaign finance. the justices cannot agree on the basic premise of the doctrine, no balancing test, no choice about the level of scrutiny that will bring agreement. whatever the results in this case, the doctrine will remain highly unstable going forward. this is not doctrine moving toward consensus, but a death match between two competing points of view. i am tempted to q

context for those cases and what we have to understand is this is an era before collective bargaining and buckley had in the year before collective bargaining was a class war and i really mean war. where there were armies, private armies hired a capitalist to destroy unions and the way they destroyed unions is also by using violence and agent provocateurs and sometimes the unions would do violence on their own but sometimes they were instigated into violence and there were spies inside the labor movement reporting on things. when darrow went to los angeles and began to look at the case against the mcnamara brothers he said my gosh, you have left evidence a mile wide behind you. they have got you. and so he tried to create an alternative explanation for the explosion, the gas leak. in fact he spent thousands of dollars hiring an architect to build a model of the "l.a. times" that would show that a gas leak could then blow up the building. it didn't work. what would you do? the people are on trial. yes they blew up the times. they didn't mean to harm anyone. so you wonder the mindset there that the

. >> do you have any stories like yours like buckley, where you started out reading your column, anybody young that read your column that was involved in this thing? do people talk to you, do they write you? >> yes, i did get letters, yes, i mean, makes you feel -- i mean the first time i remember s about 35, girl came up to me after a speech, and she wasn't that young, let me say, she was like college age, and i said -- she said, i love you, i've been reading you since high school and i thought, you have, but that's the way is it. i think michelle may have told me that she read my stuff and made her want to be a columnist, i'm not shureks she might have been one of them. >> whether you're writing this book or a column, who do you think about? is there anybody that you think of? any person? >> not really. i'm thinking of the educated reader, the curious person who is open-minded. i always look to persuade. i don't write just to preach to the choir, i always hope to persuade. >> how open-minded are you? >> i'm pretty open-minded. >> how open-minded are conservatives, or for that matter li

buckley v. vallejo, that dealt with somebody spending his own or her own money when you overrule that as well. >> absolutely. mike bloomberg spent $100 million to become mayor of new york city. and his opponent spent, you know -- around $10 million. that's not right. but it is currently constitutionally protected. and that's why rich people have -- >> okay. >> have had a lot of success. the problem is then you're going to say to somebody you can't spend your own money to make your own political argument. that does get dicey from the first amendment. >> you know what i say to them? tough luck. that's the rule. >> jeff toobin says tough luck from the highest bench in the world. great to have you here. >> the highest bench at this table. >>> the president's ex-physician makes a house call. e.d. hill asks him if obama care is good for what ails us or will it lead to a shortage of doctors. new citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. ci

buckley thought he was funny. a parody he held led to a job at the national review. at the "new york times" his columns are a moderate brand of conservatism. some like to call him the liberal's favorite conservative. he likes to s that being a conservative columnist at the times is like being the chief rabbi of mecca. he ialso the best selling author of books that tell us things we don't foe about ourselve shall and our culture like boboes in paradise, the new uppers class and how they got there. in recent years his interest in neuroscience and the unconsciou has cent into his comns. we all know the feeling that when we begin to open the paper and see that today david brooks is writing about what really interests him. what he calls the enchanted realm of the unconscious mind. hinew bookefles this passion. it is called "the social animal" the hidden srces of love, character and achievement. i am very pleased to have david brooks back at this table. welcome. >> great to be with you again. >> rose: the social animal. >> yeah, we're not rational animals. >> rose: this is

no one admired buckley. very few people think it was even close to right. so while the compromise has allowed the court to cobble together a majority or plurality opinion, it has not helped build a common intellectual framework. davis and mack combish look like the money is speech debate writ small because one side finds it very easy to imagine provisions like the million nares amendment as punitive, punishing a candidate for his successes. so in the petitioner summer they begin with a great anecdote by janet napolitano. at a debate, she pulled her opponent aside. she was being publicly funded he was privately funded and she thanked him for his fund raising efforts. he had a fund raiser that raised $750,000, and she got $750,000 in response. napolitano said to him, i am quite certain i am the only democratic gove snore in the country for whom george bush held a fund raiser. the other side meanwhile finds it very, very hard to figure out why public finance systems that impose no constraints are remotely troubling. just as kagen said it seemed like the system

no one admirers buckley. very few people think it was even close to right. so to allow the court to cobble together a majority, it has not helped build a common intellectual framework. in paris and macomish -- in davis and macomish, in a petitioner's summary, they begin with a great anecdote when janet napolitano was running for governor. she pulled her upon the side and she thanked him for his fund- raising efforts. he had it fundraiser that raised $750,000. she got $750,000 in response. she said, i am quite certain that i am the only democratic governor in the country that george bush held a fund-raiser for. just as kagan said, it seemed like the system promotes more speech all-around. that is a core problem in campaign finance. the justices cannot agree on the basic premise of the doctrine, no balancing test, no choice about the level of scrutiny that will bring agreement. whatever the results in this case, the doctrine will remain highly unstable going forward. this is not doctrine moving toward consensus, but a death match between two competing points o

no one admirers buckley. very few people think it was even close to right. so to allow the court to cobble together a majority, it has not helped build a common intellectual framework. in paris and macomish -- in davis and macomish, in a petitioner's summary, they begin with a great anecdote when janet napolitano was running for governor. she pulled her upon the side and she thanked him for his fund- raising efforts. he had it fundraiser that raised $750,000. she got $750,000 in response. she said, i am quite certain that i am the only democratic governor in the country tt george bush held a fund-raiser for. just as kagan said, it seemed like the system promotes more speech all-around. that is a core problem in campaign finance. the justices cannot agree on the basic premise of the doctrine, no balancing test, no choice about the level of scrutiny that will bring agreement. whatever the results in this case, the doctrine will remain highly unstable going forward. this is not doctrine moving toward consensus, but a death match between two competing points of

and whether i agree or disagree with buckley or citizens united is, frankly, irrelevant to the job that i have to do on a daily basis. and if there's a day in the near future where i'm no longer serving on the commission, i'll be happy to tell you all of my deepest, darkest thoughts on our entire election system because i have lots of them. [laughter] i've been in this area for quite some time both on the campaign side and on the hill. but, frankly, in this current role it's irrelevant. my job is to follow the supreme court decisions, um, and i think, frankly, other people's jobs is to explain why they think they're wrong or right and to ask us for action, to take action on that, provide us with comment and input where you can. but i, i have to stick to my role, and i hope you'll even begrudgingly, perhaps, respect that. [laughter] >> i will. [laughter] >> thank you. [laughter] >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] >> a full slate of live events for you today on the c-span networks. at noon eastern on c-span, the committee for economic

william buckley said he would rather have the first 400 people in the boston phone book and run congress -- run congress and the faculty at harvard. [applause] the same kind of leftists run our country now. we cannot let them do that. for the love of our fellow man, let's fight the good fight. if you live in a red stain, campaign in a blue state. if you live in a blue state, help is on the way. i will do everything i can to win. you do the same. america is the city on the hill. is the in the region -- it is the envy of the world. let's make her shine. [applause] ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, from little rock, ark. the state rep resentative. >> it is good to be with you today. like many of you, i grew up in the church. my father is a pastor. he always said that the mind can only comprehend what the seat can endure. i appreciate you being here today. have you had some wonderful speakers or what? a lot of people want to be president. if i had been here last year, i would tell you about a house republican, state house republican group comprised of 28 members. i would tell you about eight stat

buckley and milton friedman. neither one of them ever ran for president, but they were great for influencing the conservative movement. host: in san francisco, calif., doug is also calling in supporting a conservative candidates. caller: i am not a new gingrich supporter. however, i do support republicans who speak their mind. i do support ron paul. i wish newt gingrich would maintain his role as a voice as a voicerdancthe curtains of urging the movement forward, but not being its leader p [er se. host: if you support newt gingrich, there is a line for you. we have not had any of those calls yet. in fort worth, texas, betty joins us. good morning. what do you think about newt gingrich, as a democratic caller? caller: i personally have never considered him a very viable candidate. i have to agree with the person who said he was just promoting his book. i would stay here instead of going on vacation and do some actual work. as far as rick perry trying to move into his place, you might want to take a look at a star-

the idea that unlimited spending equalsss -- you know -- >> do you have me to give a dissertation on buckley? >> not a dissertation, just a comment. >> i think -- you know, i think i've expressed my personal views at the importance of disclosure and frankly of the, you know, i don't agree with the approach that enormous speak is the only way the first amendment can be satisfied. so -- but -- i think, you know, you'll have to -- you'll have to forgive me. my role is administrator. and we have a specific role. whether i agree or disagree is irrelevant. the job that i have to do on a daily basis. if there's a day in the near future where i'm no longer serving, i'll be happy to tell you all of the thoughts. i have lots them. i've been in the area for quite some time both on the campaign and on the hill and -- but, frankly in the current role, it's irrelevant. my jobs is to follow the supreme court decisions and i think frankly other people's jobs is to explain why they think they are wrong or right and to ask us for action to take action on that, provide us with comment and input where you can.

buckley and ronald freeman. they did not run for president but they were conservative intellectuals and there were great for influencing the conservative movement. host: san francisco, calif., also supporting another republican candidate. caller: i could not agree more with what your last caller said. i'm not a newt gingrich supporter. however, i support republicans to speak their mind and go against the typical republican mantra, a diluted republican mantra. i wish newt gingrich would maintain his role as a voice behind a curtain. i wish he would urge the conservative movement forward but not being its leader per se. host: the numbers to call are on your screen. in fort worth, texas, bett he joins us, good morning. caller: good morning. i personally never really considered newt gingrich a real viable candidate. i have to agree with the tweet that said he was just promoting his book. someone who is serious i would think would stay here instead of going on vacation and do some actual work. as far as rick perry tr

i want to thank everybody who put it together along with katie buckley and mark evans. >> it was a labor of love. believe me. they loved putting it together. >> they had a lot to work with. >> i feel like i have been saying this all morning. wouldn't it be funny if the surprise is we have no surprises. we do and those are coming up for meredith in a little while. >> the crowd has been showing their love all morning. [ cheers and applause ] >> they are really going to miss you. >> i'm going to miss them. i really am. >> mr. roker, how about a check of the weather? >> looking ahead to the weekend, your first weekend without having to worry about coming in on monday. saturday, we have sunny and hot gulf coast states into the southwest. sunday, we're looking at showers in the northeast. mild conditions and n the great lakes. lots of heat in the gulf coast to the southwest. more showers along the coastal pacific northwest. >>> good morning to you. high pressure's going to warm us up nicely. we have a nice-looking day on tap. lots of sunshine. we'll add a few degrees. we have the cloud deck th

and whether i agree or disagree with buckley or citizens united is frankly irrelevant to the scrob that i have to do on a daily basis. and if there's a day in the near future where i'm no longer serving on the commission, i'll be happy to tell you all of my deepest, darkest thoughts on our entire election system, because i have lots of them. i've been doing this area -- i've been in this area for quite some time, both on the campaign side and on the hill. but, frankly, in this current role, it's irrelevant. my job is to follow the supreme court decisions, and i think, frankly, other people's job is to explain why they think they're wrong or right and to ask us for action, to take action on that, provide us with comment and input where you can. but i have to stick to my role, and i hope you'll even begrudgingly respect that. >> i will. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. [captioning made possible by nba digital] >> thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on today's "washington journal,"