answered in the interim. we keep hearing assurances as the very same assurances that we have been hearing over the course of the week's sense that i was this happened -- the diagnosis happened. has anything changed that would send a message that this is less likely to happen again? >> let me start by saying that here at the white house we offer our condolences to the loved ones of mr. duncan and the doctors and nurses that worked around-the-clock literally to try to care for him and help them to recover. this is an indication of the fact that this is a deadly disease, and it underscores why the president has made it a priority to stop the spread of this disease that's the source. the involvement of the united states military has galvanized the international community. we are seeing significant

conjugations of aid and assistance. more, however, is needed coming and we are committed to putting in place medical help required to stop this in its tracks. .. >> measure to head off a

recession. is there any concern to the whitehouse that the global economic recovery is at risk? >> i think my first observations is the conditions you are sighting make the american economy look good. i saw the downgrading of the global economy and they were advising upedwards of the u.s. economy and that is showing the economy is resilient. i am suggesting the united states is showing resilience and other countries are desperate for that. a lot of that is due in no small part to the policy the administration put in place but the bulk goes to the america workers and a bunch of credit

goes to innovators that are the strength of the american economy but there is no doubt the economic policies in place are envied by the world. >> is there no concern? >> we are hoping the economy of our allies and partners around the globe strengthen. but the fact is here in the united states we have had 55 months in a row of job growth and that is the longest in history. 10.3 million private sector jobs have been created. there is a tremendous amount of improvement made and the fact it is doing it against a backdrop

that is failing it is showing how strong america is and a testament to the hard working american worker. >> fred, i am give you the last word. >> is minimum wage on the ballot in november? each is less than 10-10 even the president's home state of illinois is $10 minimum. is that a disappointment to the whitehouse or is this a first step? >> fred, what we have seen since the president first issued his call for a higher minimum wage is 13 different states and the district of columbia have taken specific steps to raise the minimum wage in their state. and we have seen announcements from companies across the country indicated they are commit today paying their workers more. this is important because of the consequences it has for middle class families and families

trying to get in the middle class. according to the cbo millions of americans would be pulled out of poverty if we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 and that is being shown in those 13 states and the district of columbia. the second important thing to note is in the 13 states where the minimum wage has been increased we have seen greater economic growth in those states in comparison and in contrast to states that have refused to raise the minimum wage. there are significant trends to raise the minimum wage and that is why the president is urging congress to take a step back and give american workers a raise all across the country. >> what is the state we are looking at? is $10.10 a disappointment? >> that is the level the president believes is optimal. but the fact is we are pleased

to see an increase in minimum wage with important benefits for the broader economy and working families across the country. we would urge congress to take the steps necessary to give workers all across the country a wage increase in the minimum wage. >> and one more. having this on the ballot in states like alaska and arkansas do you think that could help draw out the democratic base? >> i think it helps win the support of republican candidates running for office. so the more we can build support among the public and across the country for raising minimum wage we see that as a good sign. this did used to be a bipartisan issue. the last time the minimum wage was signed into law it was signed by george w bush. this isn't a partisan issue. the president would enjoy the opportunity to work in

bipartisan fashion in congress to give all of american workers a raise. thanks, everybody. have a good day. >> coming up friday at 10 o'clock eastern we will bring you the funeral of james brady and speakers will include the vice president and former presidential secretary joe lockhart and mike mccurry and others. that is taking place at the museum in washington, d.c. and we have it for you on friday at 10 a.m. on c-span. >> our coverage continues with a week full of debate. live coverage of the pennsylvania debate between tom wolf and tom corbet.

and live coverage of the illinois house debate for the 17th district. and later at 9:00, live coverage of the illinois's governor debate. and friday night live at 8 eastern, the wisconsin governor's debate between scott walker and mary burke. and live coverage of the iowa senate debate on saturday. and on sunday live at 8 p.m. eastern we will have the michigan governor's debate. c-span campaign 2014. more than one hundred debates for the control of congress. in montana, the candidates met

for their first tell television debate. here is a brief look at that debate. >> my opponent called for economic sanctions against isis. tell me how you put economic sanctions against a non-nation state? maybe we should write a wordy lefter? the issue is isis is a danger -- letter -- i think you have to have a three prong approach. you have to shutdown the southern border. it is no longer on immigration issue. it is as a security and immigration threat. a nation that can build the canal in the 20th century certainly can build a wall now. it is going to call for america to leave. you cannot control isis by air

alone. there is no snowball chance in hell that air operations will work was said and i agree. secondally, limit the ground forces to special forces -- secondly -- and make sure coalitions we chose are watched and trained and limit our involvement but make sure that isis is destroyed. >> quick follow up because no one answered. how are we paying for this? we put two wars on the credit card. would you support a war tax to support the war we seem to be in? >> that is two clearly different approaches on this issue. i am saying we need thoughtful and responsible decisions. a letter isn't going to get the job done, no. but this is someone who called for invading mexico because we have an american in jail in

mexico. that is not what i want representing me in congress. his announcement to the president having airstrikes was let's send in more troops. and he announced when it was said women should serve in combat roles he said that is certain to cost lives. that is not the judgment we need in congress. and it is a good question. how much is this going to cost? it needs to be debated in congress and authorized. >> how do we pay for this? >> by having a strong economy. a navy cost money, bridges, schools, infrastructure -- it all cost money -- paying for medicare, social security, we need a robust economy. and john, i know you didn't serve but there is a marine that

has been in a prison for over six months. every man, woman and i have served both and commanded both, everyone in the country makes sure america has their back and when we don't like benghazi, like mexico, what happens is it sends a signal to every veteran fighting you know what, america is not going to be there. i didn't advocate invading mexico but i said the president should do his role and get the marine back >> this race is rated as the republican favor and the great falls tribrune says the republican is leading in the debate. the dc circuit court of appeals heard from a case that banned

federal contractors from contributing to campaigns. it involves three various contractors. we will show you the oral arguments now and it is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> ms. larson before we begin i wanted to say judge henderson is here in spirit. she is very sick today but she is listening in as we are going forward with the argument. >> may i please the court? the fundamental problem with section 441 c rather viewed from the first amendment or the equal protection clause is that a complete lack of fit between the incertificateed purpose of the statutes and the means by which it is carried out. the purpose of the statute is to avoid the appearance of propriety and possibility of corruption and this is not there. >> are you then saying we don't need to look at this under the

equal protection clause? are you abandoning that? >> no, your honor, either or both. >> the first amendment is more sweet right? the supreme court court hasn't used the equal protection clause at all. it had a chance to do so in davis but didn't. >> they did use it in austin, your honor. the court first considered whether the statute issued in michigan was under or over inclusive. it rejected that and analyzed the equal protection claim that unincorporated associations were treated better than corporations. so it did reach the merits on the equal protection claim and treated them separately. so we have history. as far as one is more sweeping than the other i suppose it depends on how you look at it. if we prevail on the first

amendment argument and corporations are allowed to make contributi contributions at all, which they are not, they would also be permitted to make contributions as contractors. on the other hand, if we prevail on equal protection the question of whether 441 c could be amendment to keep corporations from make contributions could be left for another day. so i guess it depends on how you view there question and if one is more sweeping. >> i have a general perspective question for you about the fit. if i read these briefs it occurred to me this case is different from other contribution cases. there is no risk here that congress is trying to accomplish some nefarious purpose like leveling the playing field or limiting the amount of money in

politics or protecting incumbants. this law is focused on general corruption and it only applies to people participating in that process and only while they are participating. so it seems that the fit is quite slug and it doesn't raise all of these concerns that work behind the other contribution case and i am wondering whether you think that is a fair description of what we have or not. >> i would first agree with your honor that this statute is different than the rest because it is an absolute ban. >> that wasn't my question. i know it is an absolute ban. but i am curious about the context i tried to put the case and how it is different than other cases >> i think it is different in another way and that is if you go back to the legislative

history of this this was put in at a time that the government could -- if you wanted to be a policeman you were a second-class citizen and the theory at the time was if you were a government contractor the congress could forbid you from making contributions as being a federal contractor. that is no longer the law. >> i agree with that. >> so if we are talking about some sort of suspect motive that is the suspect motive. but i don't think we have to show suspect motive. i think we just have to show it is underinclusive and overinclusive under the first amendment. >> picking up on that question, the holmes view isn't the

current view but it is saying the government can regulate their workforce more than privately owned companies. and government contractors have more strinagain -- stringent -- so why isn't this a federal case like that? >> federal employees are nottco. they >> there is a different package of ethic rules on government employees and on contractors but the basic point is that in terms of government ethic regulation, government employees, traditionally, this isn't novel law, have been subject to more stringent ethic regulations and

so to contractors and that history seems to be something we should pay attention to. >> i agree government employees and federal contractors can be subject to more strict regulations that apply to regular citizens. but there are limits on what federal employees can be made to do or not permitted to do and the question here is is the fifth close enough and i suggest it isn't. >> you are looking at 10-11 government employees who can not make a contribution at any time to any federal candidate or campaign committee. is the code of conduct, each one of us making donations, constitutional? >> i have not considered that question, your honor. >> now is your chance. >> i would say it doesn't make you a felon. >> i didn't take it you were

lying. >> well, the court pointed that out on several occasions. justice kennedy in citizen united made an important point of that being a felony >> that is what you rely on? >> i didn't say that. i would say the appearance of giving money to the federal candidates or the persons before whom you may appear is -- >> there is no corruption issue because there is no chance anyone we give money to is going to help with the corruption because we have lifetime appointments. so this is the importance of the judiciary and the civil service to appear non-partisan and not be appearing to be contributing to campaigns. isn't that on -- in addition to the things judge cato said, this

is also different from usual questions about rather bans on contributions are first amendment problems and in that they apply to government employees. so we have the concern about quid pro quo question and the appearance therefore but also the concern of the neutrality of the civil service >> i agree the neutrality of the civil service is important. congress made a decision with respect to that that banning contributions is not an essential element. >> it has done other things which maybe more strict in respect to federal employees as you know under the hatch act. it is giving them the protection of the merits protection board which isn't available to the independent contractors. if you are saying congress made

this determination and we should defer to it then you talked yourself out of court, haven't you? >> if congress sat down with the federal campaign act in mind and the changes in the federal contracting process that have taken place since 1940 and said this is the balance we are striking like it did in 1989 and 1993. >> they did that. this law was precipitated by scandal in the '40s and congress banned on contributions by contractors and since then the only change is government contracting is a far larger percentage of work. if anything it is a greater concern than it was many years ago. >> your honor, i would point out two things. first, there was major change in

1976 when congress amended section 441-c to expressly permit corporate contractors to establish pacs which must be established under their own name. they are funded by the corporations who are contractors and those pacs can make the contributi contributions. >> that could be a problem under strict scrutiny and i know you are arguing for that but there is not any precedent that contribution limits should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. we look at this under a close analysis >> i would agree there is no strict scrutiny under the first amendment but i would point out the recent case has great teeth

as the court said in that case and it objected because there was a substantial mismatch. >> but in that case you were regulating speech of the general citizenry. it has been discussed and this is a particular type of regulation of individuals who are in close working relationship with the government and working with the government under contract and applies only during the time they are trying to get that contract or serving under the contract. so i am trying to figure out how some cases that regulate employee's speech factor in and do they influence the closely drawn scrutiny in a way that balance the government? how do the two lines of authority interact in the lines

of this context? >> i agree there are many strands of supreme court jurisdiction prudence in this case and this court requires this case to deal with the intersection of it. i think in the campaign finance because it is first amendment and equal protection the court has been solicitous of the right to make any contributions at all. as the court said in the bomant case they will look at the nature of the activity being banned and look at other alternatives and let corporate pacss make the contribution. >> when have they be solish -- solicited -- any more than other

ca cases? >> i agree. i know that is because they are allow today make the donations. the nasa case the court said with respect to background investigations since con tras h trashth -- contractors and employees are alike treat them the same. there are provisions in the government contracting law give contractors the right to go to court and protest and they are not exactly the same because they are not the same. >> looking at citizen's united which is a pro-free speech decision carves out letter carriers as a precedent it is approving of and letter carriers was a case that said federal service is different and a line quoted is federal service should

depend on merit performance rather than political agenda. and that is sited in citizen unit ed >> and there is no man on letter carriers making contributions >> there is a ban on the first speech. >> yes, your honor >> just a different kind of wording but the basic principle is sited there in citizen united. >> i don't disagree there is authority for congress to regulate the activities of federal contractors and workers. >> do you think congress can ban federal employees from all contributions? >> i don't think so. >> why not? >> i don't think the justification is there. if we are talking about low

level employees like a secretary it seems excessive under the first amendment. it seems overerly broad and examinati examinations that the supreme court insist on making >> can i ask you about under inclusiveness and this question you started talking about with respect to corporate officers. part of your argument is it makes no sense to draw the line at us because it included contractors but not the offices -- >> and the committees that are made to bear the same name and funded >> one question i have about that is is there something odd about doctrine saying this is a violation of the first amendment

because it doesn't restrict enough speech. i looked at the green party decision and that included a ban that did expand to corporate officers and the court sustains it, but barely saying it seems like it is almost overbroad to sweep them in but we are holding our nose and doing it. it seems strange to say that was barely constitutional but it was compelled >> the green party case stands in part it was sustainable because they closed the loophole. the green party said it would make no sense, the court said, to ban corporations from making contributions but to allow the owner who has the same name as the company -- >> i didn't read it that way. i thought they said it make make sense. we are troubled by the extension

of the law to cover the officers because it restricted more speech, but we are going to sustain it. but the flipside is the legislature should have freedom to decide it doesn't want to restrict more speech by extending the law. there is another difference in the case. >> the law at issue is in response to a series of scandal but the legislature sat down and drew careful lines, precisely the kind of judgment we don't find here >> it doesn't go to the question about under inclusiveness. the statement of the under drawn rule coming from buckley says this. . maybe sustained if a state demonstrates a specifically important interest in the employee's mean closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of freedom to the extent the statue

is leaky and allows more freedom. it doesn't appear to be consistent with the test that the court is employed. we said under inclusiveness counts only if it doesn't serve the purpose at all. >> of course, the quote you have for both buckley and mccutcheon isn't showing people situated here. >> but the cases that talk about what you are essentially raising is an equal protection argument are all, as far as i can tell, ones in which there is a concern about what the court repeatedly says is quote invidious discrimination and that is discrimination where you have reason to be suspicious and congress is favor people who are

incumbants over non-incumbants. there is no evidence of that kind of invidious behavior. it maybe a mistake or leaky but it is not invidious discriminati discrimination. >> i would agree it is not invidious discrimination but if it is over the fact that should be enough. >> why under inclusiveness? i get there point about over inclusive but the purpose in the green party case was to avoid unnecessary or more restrictions. why doesn't the statute that just doesn't yet include those restrictions better than from the first amendment point of view? >> the under inclusive is there as a check to be sure the

legislature has carefully considered the question and not doing things inadvertently. >> one case that wasn't mentioned a lot in the briefing but seems to bear is broderic and the decision came down with letter carriers and there was an equal protection claim saying the state hatch provictions were under inclusive because they didn't encompass it and in a footnote it was there is an equal protection but the legislature has to have equal leeway in dealing with it and b it would seem strange to restrict more speech and they should not go the extra mile and now you have supreme court

decision that addresses the claim and i am wonder what the difference is in the mode of analysis in that case and what you want us to do here >> i don't make the argument that the under inclusiveness is as important as the fact it is overerly broad. i realize there is no ban in that case either which is what we are dealing with. a statute -- >> there is a ban on a lot of things. >> but most had to be with activities being conducted by civil servants while on the job. we are trying to do this off the job. the fec says your first amendment rights are not completely restricted. you can hold a fundraiser at your house. you can have the fundraiser and invite anybody you want, you can

have them raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, the people can be seeking to get ambassadorships and you can spend a $1,000 of your own on invitations, food and it doesn't even have to be reported. that seems to give lie to the notion that this statue is all about appearance. >> you think there is secretly something going on here? i do appreciate the role of strict scrutiny and getting to the true motives of congress. you don't think they are true motives? however they attempt to resolve it is preventing corruption in appearance? >> i agree. >> you keep saying you are thinking that is their motive. you don't believe there is an

insi insideious behavior here, do you? >> no, i am saying they were trying to keep out corruption but it is not working. >> let me ask you about the llc's. an individual contractor can create an llc, right? >> yes. >> and then spend as much money as he or she wants on political contributions? >> if the person was like wendy wagoner who was a part-time consultant for the government or expert witness, they good create an llc. the people like mr. brown almost certainly could not have done this through an llc or if they had and the agency would have allowed them they would have had a sacrifice and that is as

individuals they have the agency paying the employee's share of the fica tax, social security, and medicare and in addition they get vacation and sick leave which obviously a corporation couldn't get. >> let me finish the equal protection clause. your point is on the equal protection side is llc isn't a realistic option >> that is correct. >> switch to the first amendment side for a minute. doesn't that hurt that case? if creating an llc isn't a realistic option for employees that doesn't undermine the legitmacy and you don't have a lot of government contractors going ahead and making contributions. >> i agree with the inability of

people who are working as employees in that capacity doesn't affect my first amendment argument. >> i am curious. you say earlier in your brief that the term committee in this law could extend to the nra or emily's list or other groups is that in play in this case really? >> well, we believe it is. it demonstrates the overbreadth of this law. the case from the fourth circuit were they upheld a ban on lobbiest ban but there was an out because they could make contributions to a political committee. minor parties, candidates for the green party or new parties that have no chance of getting elected at all --

>> that is a different question. but i thought committee referred only to groups that have the major purpose of electing are candidate and you are throwing another wrench in making it seem like it has another meaning >> there are two kinds of committees that might come into play. one the independent committees who make expenditures. those are not issues here. none of my clients want to make a contribution to them or anything like that. but the nra, for example, has a corporate pack, -- well not a corporate pack but it is member pact and they make contributions to the elections and that is the find where they might want to make contributions. >> is that a super pac?

>> those are pacs that make independent expenditures and can do so because of citizen united >> i asked because you said in district court your clients don't want to make contributions to super pacs >> that is independent expenditures. they don't want to take out ads and newspaper and give to organizations that are taking out ads >> what exactly do they want to do? >> make contributions to candidates, political parties -- >> what about committees? >> they have said they may wish to >> it looks like what was said in the district court and your brief that that issue isn't before us. you are saying in your brief that your clients don't want to and in district court you said they don't want to make contributions to super pacs.

so other than political parties and individual politicians -- >> there may have been miscommunication between us and the district court on that. my clients don't expressly indicate they want to make contributions like the right to life or nra or planned parenthood that makes direct contributi contributions. that is covered by 441-c. >> mr. miller who is the only surviving plaintiff here doesn't mention committees. the other two who new appear to be mute and are standing and not really defending do mention committees. miller just said i would like to provide financial support for federal candidates running for office or their political parties. i understand you have an argument there is not a way of

relieving the over inclusiveness by giving to a issue pac that can then con tribute but i don't understand that you have standing or that your clients have argued that they have any intention of contributing to the kinds of things you are talking about: emily's list, nra, sierra club and whatever you are talking about that would recontribute to candidates. is that right? >> that is correct. but we believe there is an overbreadth argument we are entitled to make. and second, i would say on the standing of both mr. brown who is temporarily not a government contractor but may well be a government contractor -- >> mr. brown, the statement you sent in says something like it is possible. >> he is going to look for employment, your honor. he has been there before. it is in january. it is certainly possible he

maybe again in the same situation as mr. wagoner. >> those are almost always the trigger words for us saying no standing >> and i know that he would be out of the case but you really put a lot of emphasis on the analogy between contractors and employees but it seems your clients illustrate the differents and that is contractors tend to be in and out of service and that is really making the risk of pay to play of just the quid pro quo corruption that is at the heart of what this provision is about. somebody who has a short-term contract and then turns around and needs work again -- that is the dynamic that is at the heart of this effort. >> with respect to both mr. miller and mr. brown, your honor, i see my time is about to expire, may i answer the question? >> of course.

>> >> both of them were long-term employees and they were hired not because of anything they did politically. they were hired because their employers knew who they were, appreciated their work and brought it back on the job. professor wagoner was hired not because of a bid but because the united states found her and asked her to do that >> i understand that. >> i want to be clear that there are multiple variations on these statutes but the government has hundreds of thousands of contractors and usaid has 700 people. >> would you acknowledge the ban is a better fit when it comes to contributions for candidates than it might be for political parties? >> it depends on which candidates. a minor party candidate who has no chance of being elected to office or talking about

imcumbants on the armed service committee that would be a better fit. but unlike the fcc decision against blot where the fcc carefully put the pieces together and made judgment on where the dangers were and where they were not, this case doesn't come close to be a matching of the goals and the means chosen to effectiate them. >> okay. thank you. >> government contractors pose an acute corruption and partisan disrupt

sdwl are >> are we allowed to consider any other appearance beyond corruption and you are arguing that other purposes are at play here, you know the merit based selection but can we consider that under governing supreme court precedence? >> it is true the supreme court has said on a number of occasions when implementing campaign contribution limits it

can be seen to serve the public but here where a discreet class are targeted and there is a particular purpose so imposing limitations on that class, the importance of the merit based workforce is appropriate. and in citizens united, a case where the supreme court indicated that when restricting campaign funding, appearance of corruption are the only interest that can be served, the court noted that letter carriers mentioned in interest and in affective government function and that the congress has a right to ensure that those functions can be served without partisan interest. >> how is this different from letter carriers with a pickering analysis with more social consideration of governmental interest? is that where you also rest your case or not so much?

>> you know, i think they are closely drawn and the scrutiny is comparable to the approach. so there does have to be important government interest and congress does have to employ them in a means that permit some expression of the employee. there does -- congress does have to take into account the rights of employees and they have to have some availability of expression. so i think the court can easily harmonize the closely drawn scrutiny in the contribution limit context when it is assessing the interest of not allowing cohersian of employees and contractors. >> is there any evidence that parties and committees are

involved in the awarding of contracts? >> there is extensive evidence they can be involved in quid pro quos. the very scandal that led to section 441-c is what i will refer to it as involves the democratic national committee. in 1930, agents went around with list of contractors -- >> how do you respond to the fact that we have a new regulatory landscape that affects that in a significant way? what is your response to that? >> this isn't a case where intervening changes in the law made it to where the function of 441-c isn't being served in a way. there have been some measure to s to make sure contractors are done by a competitive bid.

but a large portion doesn't occur through the competitive process and the incident of contract is a growing situation. >> do you have other examples where parties have implemented awards with contracts? >> yes. for example in connecticut -- >> any at the federal level? we have the argument that the states are situated and the contract officers there are more political than at the federal level. any federal experience where parties and committees, political committees are involved in the awarding on contracts? >> well, there is less evidence at the federal level. >> is there any beyond the 19 s 1940s? >> there is.

the ban has been in effect sibs the 1940 so at the federal level it has to happen in more indirect ways. it has. for example, one of the most notorious scandals was when a foreign government gained the contract to install wear wireless in the united states house of representatives and that money was funded by the charity ran by the -- >> isn't that a corporate contractor? i am talking about an individual contractor. those are the plaintiffs before us. >> it was. but the danger can happen in either case. it isn't the case that congress -- >> it can happen, but has it happened? >> at the state level, for example. >> but not at the federal level? >> not necessarily the actual contractor because they are not allowed to but persons

associated with the contractor have. congressman randy cunningham and money was funded to him pie by a defense counsel to him and other candidates and party committees so you are not going to find an example of the person who is the actual contractor at the federal level having given a contribution for a party for a non-committee candidate. but governor roland, some of the money to give him contractors to political party committees >> do you think congress can ban federal employees from making contributions consistent with the first amendment? >> i do. and it has. we are -- were -- not allowed to

until 1993. so the court needs to look at the existing evidence and build a record -- >> how about grant recipients? same answer there? >> i am not sure. that is something that again there would have to be some evidence of danger. >> there hasn't been a record -- >> why -- and there are lots of mismatched questions but the individual contractors are still allow today raise money and bundle money and you know and i know that the people who bundle and raise money are much more valuable to the parties and candidates than one individual contributions. what do we do about that seeming and gaping whole in the statue? how do we approach that? >> i think congress attacked for

forcefully the most direct danger and that is money coming from people using the contract being used to make a campaign contribution. other maybes means of -- means of expression were allowed including raising money for candidates. but that is consistent with congress' charge which is to make it closely drawn. >> that raises the question and let me follow-up with that. that raises the other side of the llc problem. in response to the plaintiff's equal protection argument, the fec said setting up on llc is not a risk. so under the law, all of these contractors could setup llc and then make all of the political contributions they want.

doesn't that raise serious questions about what this ban is doing? >> i don't think so, judge. and it is true that perhaps congress could go further -- >> that wasn't my question. my question is the commission's argument is congress' goal here to prevent government contractors from making political contributions and according to your theory and in the record of this case introduced by the commission, any independent contractor can willingly make any contribution he or she wants simply by setting up an llc and the record also shows that agencies are indifferent rather they contracting the business or the llc. doesn't that raise serious questions about the legitmacy of

the claim if it can be gone around so easily? >> i don't think so. that notion challenges the very status of separate corporate personhood. so while it does permit a personal to set-up a separate entity and have that enter into a contract and that means there are consequences for that and that entity has to pay taxes. >> you say it isn't odious to do this. that is your record. that is your reference. the other side said it is difficult. >> yes. >> in the equal protection claim you say it is expensive. they didn't say that. >> it is easy but there are some consequences and congress has attacked the most dangerous possible exchange and that is the legal person who actually is getting the money from the government cannot make the

contract and by permitting personals to setup llc's that permits so at least the person who could be offering -- the legal person who could be offering the quid in exchange for the quo can't make the contribution. >> if i am a contractor i can set-up an llc and contract with aid through my llc and i can go ahead and make all of the contributions i want in my name. >> yes. but that doesn't mean that the ban that congress put in place isn't serving any purpose at all. >> but it makes you wonder if it is this easy to escape it what is the ban accomplishing? >> it does attack the most

dangerous situations >> the problem is this isn't just attacking it most dangerous situations. it is a broad ban of a donation of even a nickel to even the nra committee or right to life committee or any of those types of organizations. so on one level you have congress coming in saying there is a real problem here or a real risk of bad appearances so we have to come in full bore with a comprehensive ban. but it is easy to get out of. so that is what it is hard to reconcile. you cannot say you are getting the worst thing when they got an awful lot more than the worst think and say it is okay to have this distinction. how do i deal with that under

closely drawn scrutiny? >> so congress attacked one part of the problem very forcefully but left the scope in a very measured way. in the buckley case and the blunt case in this court this under inclusive analysis made it clear that congress doesn't have to go as far as it could. so provisions addressing people who own the corporate contractors or have share holders or substantial owners. the green party case had provisions, the blunt case included some family members and those were upheld. so congress could have gone that far. ...

>> they can decide t to stop sht and attack it one step at a time even if the second step has the same problem? >> it would only be struck down if the provision as this court said in blonde cannot be fairly said to advance any genuine substantial government interest. i don't think we're at that point. it probably wouldn't all be here, right, if the individual contractors or, if it was that

easy. if they refined their position that argument today in fact some contractors can't just set up llc's. they are expert -- >> does that make it better or worse? you have a subset again to llc's and others can come its golden under the statute and we'll just pretend that there's really, there's no real problem if the donation to congressman so-and-so on the armed services committee comes from patricia millett, llc rather than attrition the let, contractor. >> well, like all these questions when there's both an over or underinclusive analysis, and will always cut one way or another, right? those doctrines are not so congress will bomb up against one or the other. it has a reasonable birth to set reasonable restrictions. >> i understand. go ahead. >> doesn't this go to the

question of whether it's closely drawn? in other words, the you can work your way around this by simply being in the corporate form, then why do you need a complete ban? why wouldn't a limit be good enough? >> because as the green party kaye said, any dollar amount can raise corruption country. so any dollar amount from the legal person that is actually making the contribution does raised appearance concerts. but the fact that the our, i mean the notion that setting up llc's completely undoes the regulation, that would be an attack on the very notion of personhood. once you set up a separate entity the individual is no longer reliable for all the misconduct. there are rules, taxes are paid by the llc.

there isn't really a difference in this context that would make it a separate legal personhood so unique here that it means the government is not serving any substantial government person whatsoever. >> under inclusiveness that's a little concerning which is, you know, one form of quid pro quo you give and give, and then you get your contract. that's not covered, right? is your only come if you're already negotiating, you the contractor only negotiating for or under a contract? isn't that something that undercuts the congressional interest in combating corruption? >> you mean if the contracts occurred at some previous point in time? >> if i am a wannabe contractor and i think, well, who is in power, who has influence? i'm going to give to that

officeholder, give, give, give. and then one application goes in and i called the constituent services and say could you put in a good word for me, and they get the contract. if i wasn't under negotiate and for the contract, i'm not covered, right? so it's only once or under negotiation or actually contracting. >> yes. i think it's true that setting up the limit so that there was some period of time after a contribution would serve the interest that we have asserted even more. congress doesn't have to go to a logical ends of its interest once it asserts one. there have been provisions like that and they been upheld. as with all these interests of the further you go, the most severe danger is being struck down for over breath. so the further you go the more risk you potentially run of

funny that it's not substantial -- it's not a substantial fit because it covers too much. >> but doesn't the fact that there's so much under inclusiveness essentially fatally got any argument -- fatally gut that this is to that crush because there are so many exceptions like the one that judge pillard just mentioned that don't apply, that would not prevent actual corruption. the only thing this statute we could really consider it to be is the appearance of corruption, isn't that really where we are? >> i don't think so. this provision continues to serve an interest in preventing quid pro quo. >> what is the record here on these llc's? >> there's a limited record on the question. i think both parties agreed, at least in some cases it is a

permissible option for individuals. >> is there any evidence that when congress acted, it knew that the ban could easily be avoided through al alcee so there was some deviousness to congresses action? i personally haven't found that in the case, and in mccutcheon the supreme court seemed loath to speculate about the shenanigans that might be engaged in. absent some evidence that this was ongoing and a problem. >> well, i do not think in 1940

debates that that issue was discussed specifically, not 100% sure about that. honestly a lot of time has passed and -- it's probably more a frequent occurrence today. >> ntoday. >> no discussion in 1994? >> that was a change to federal employees, the change of think you're referring to is whether in federal employees could make contributions. >> there was no such a thing as an llc in the 1940s them was there? >> probably not. >> that's the fec. that's your regulations, interpreting it as not coming llc's, isn't that right? >> we don't have a specific regulation on that but we have a definition of the persons ear so it's not the person making -- >> a statutory definition, not a regular definition. i was just asking. this definition a person which doesn't extend to the, which

suggests to the llc doesn't mean human being behind the llc. is that in the statute or is that a regulatory definition of? >> i don't think it's a definition a person in the statute. >> is an llc defined as -- hasn't the fdc have regulations which specifically says -- fec, and individual contractor created an llc that the individual -- [inaudible] >> i don't believe there's a regulation specifically to that fact. but -- >> where do these llc's come from, just so i'm clear? everybody said you could take the statute by setting up an l llc. >> they come as the operation of state law. so the statute addresses

persons, so if people are setting up separate persons under state law, then the definition doesn't reach them. but i think the court had it right on this question, the fact that a legislature chooses to focus on one quid pro quo, and ever -- every conceivable instance doesn't -- to the credulous. the fact that there is some means for separate legal persons to engage in this activity does not mean that the purpose isn't being further in some sense. again, the corporate van, they don't have that same opportunity to just set up an llc. part of the equal protection claim here is that individual contractors are worse off, but that's not really clear. some ways that they are better off in some ways they are worse

off. >> one thing the challengers say is if the problem is in the contracting process, the solution is to more tightly regulate the awarding of contracts before you take the step of them infringing on speech. how do you respond to that argument? >> well, i think congress has permitted to address the danger of corruption and the interest on a slightly merit-based workforce on multiple fronts. on multiple flanks. so i think congress has done both and it is permitted to do both. so there's not evidence that those provisions have completely made the interest in, that congress asserted no longer serving any purpose whatsoever. for example, in new jersey a state contractor had made a number of contributions to try to win business to renovate the motor vehicle system. it was awarded on a competitive

contract, $400 million. they used their contributions and their access to distort the awarding of the system through the competitive process. they didn't complete the contract -- well, it was over $200 million over budget and had come it broke down and had to be scrapped within weeks. that was a situation where the actual contractor, the corporation had delivered $1000 check to the state senate leader the day after they had submitted their proposal. they had their person introduce their corporate represented in that way. this is so-and-so from the parsons company. they just submitted their bid in response to the request for proposals. a check from the actual contributor. so even though in that situation the formalities of contracting had been set up to try to prevent that sort of corruption, there's not evidence that those sorts of the formalities make the interest in fighting quid

pro quo corruption and effective government functions come completely no longer being served by the contribution been. and new jersey change the words -- rules after that. just like in the last 10 years a number of states have, new jersey, ohio, connecticut, hawaii because of those problems even though many of those states to have processes for trying to make bidding. >> can i ask one real-world practical question? how many individual federal contractors are there, roughly? millions of? >> congress hasn't been able to get a handle on it. >> a lot. >> a lot. >> many, i don't know about most but many are formal federal employees i would imagine. and so the question is, someone has been a federal employee and has contributed and then becomes a contract and keeps contributing without knowing the law.

real-world implications. does the government worn contractors that they are now subject to a ban on contributi contributing? because imagine if not, i imagine there are a lot of unintentional violations out there. >> i believe, well, there's mandatory ethics training for employees. >> i know for employers but this is for contractors. >> i believe as a general matter there are compliance measures for entities. >> individuals. >> persons as well. i don't think there's clear evidence on that in the record but i believe there is. there are measures taken that contractors complied. >> and in the mens rea, not knowing the law, despite outsider public and more justice department issue, but not knowing the lucky think is a difference to defense to the felony charge if you don't know the law as a contractor, you

been a former federal employee into cut $100 check to your local member of congress? >> certainly -- >> you say i did know the law prohibited that. is that still a felony or not? >> no, your honor. so under section 441c in order to be a criminal violation it would have to be a knowing and willful violation. >> the supreme court said willful requires general proposition knowledge of the law. >> knowing and willful is held as correct. >> i just want. >> i just wanted to click but that would not be drawn into this. in other words, unknowing, completely unknown. i imagine, maybe i'm wrong, just thinking about this, there's not a record in this case would normally have been thinking about this, one concern was completely unknown violations of this and whether that would land you in prison. >> i would not be a criminal violation. >> the statute says it covers the nations that are made directly or indirectly.

if someone set up an llc with the intent and purpose of being able to make donations and they couldn't otherwise make, would that count as indirectly? >> it's a different person making the contribution. >> how does indirect work without going through somebody else? isn't that what indirect means? you are going through someone else. >> well, it could be through someone else, but if you have actually gone to the trouble of setting up a separate legal person can i don't think that's what the statute was addressing. >> it would be direct. >> i'm sorry? >> the whitney indirect at all, if you set up an llc. many individual starts writing checks. that's a direct payments to members of congress, or to politicians, right?

>> they are from the llc. i think part of what the work of the indirect it at the time -- >> is an llc -- you just confuse me. are you telling me i set up an llc seeking a contract with the government and my llc can make conservation? >> i'm sorry, if individuals make observations. >> right. so what indirect about that? >> it's a different person. >> i'm having a lot of trouble figuring out where you get this. i understand there's nothing in the statute that supports the proposition you are making. that naming the statute is unconstitutional, but the federal regular sure interpreter and about llc's is inconsistent with the statute. i mean, the statute and even the regulation that the plaintiffs a site which is section 115.6 talks about the individual members of associations and

corporations. talks about them in the portal. are there any fcc rulings on llc's? are we playing with a shadow? >> there aren't any rulings in this specific context of the government contracting context. i'm not sure about -- >> ruling with respect to the statute that says a person can't make a contribution in which the fcc has ruled that individual who is the sole member of an llc can make it. >> i think there may be. i'm not sure. we consider something on that if you like your i think there may be some indications of that in past history. maybe in the advisory opinion context but i'm not 100% sure. >> you are arguing equal protection case?

[inaudible] they say it's too expensive to set up an llc. you say it's not. [inaudible] llc can contract with the government and the individual can make contributions, is that correct? >> the individual who have set up -- >> set up the hell else he. once it is set up with the government do individuals than able to make political contributions? isn't that what your debate is about? >> that's part of the debate, yes. >> no further questions from the bench. okay. additional time? we will give you another two minutes. >> thank you, your honor. >> i think the llc answer is the llc's are subsets of corporations to the are a type of corporation to its the most

poignant example because there is a difference between the llc and the individual declaration page 76 of the joint appendix will answer that. the second point i want to make is, judge cabinet, they've been unable to determine how many federal contractors are. i tried as hard as i could that there are lots of them, both individuals and corporate contractors. as for the democratic national committee -- >> is it clear that is a relatively recent development of having a large number of personal services, contact of? >> yes, your honor and it's partially responsive to congresses and executive branches unwillingness to have more employees so they go out and hire contractors who are doing the same thing as two of my clients are here. they're doing the same things, supervising employees. as far as the scandal in 1940 is concerned, that scandal could happen today. what happened today because what -- instead of the owner, the

business owner would make the contributions. that is exactly what this is allowed and that's what most of the scandals are about. the $1000 in new jersey can anyone who has a business with a big contract surely could afford $1000. >> if you're concerned about them being similar to employees, certainly the case that in the states political parties have, try to figure out subtly made clear that a low-level political employers have to give money to the party if they want to keep their job, right? >> that's coercion your honor. that a survey by federal law. that is subtly are unsettled. federal law already forbids that. >> it what we are really looking, and does supreme court said that doesn't matter. that's not enough to make limits on contributions inappropriate. so we have to look for something close because we are not likely to find as the supreme court

said the exact corrupt bargain. and isn't that very similar being from the great state of illinois, supreme court has two opinions on state parties in illinois. one, elrod versus burns. you were for minor, the democratic party sadly make sure that only employees who made contributions to the democratic party could be hired by the sheriff. that was in 1976. and then the republican party did exactly the same thing 15 years later for the state government. don't have those show that parties have an incentive to try to make money, even in small amounts, from large numbers of employees by looking at to contribute and who doesn't? and if that's the case if we take this cap off, if we take this limit off, why should we think it won't apply, happened at the federal level as well? >> first, ma your honor, we are dealing with parties and

employees and these the parties and contractors. second is -- >> i -- >> employs already committed to make the very same contribution my clients are not permitted to make. >> this is a whole new as you said growing group of people available to get contributions to political parties. and if we take the cap off for them, what makes us think that the parties won't take advantage of that? >> well, i'm sure that the parties would solicit government contractor to they will not get a lot of money from contractors like my clients year, your honor, but they can solicit them for much bigger contractors now. if i may, blessing want to say, can i read for one second from the government's brief on page 32, most americans lack familiarity with the complexity of federal contracting and that it could easily get any contribution by contractors with suspicion. that's the reason that the political tax of corporate

contractors, the office of political contractors and the chief procurement officers and major shareholders of contractors at llc's, that's what's wrong with this, that there is no explanation as to why the other protections in the federal election campaign act are not sufficient to take care of those interests and given the substantial mismatch we have here, we ask the tort declared the statute unconstitutional as applied to these individuals. >> we will take the matter under submission. thanks to both sides. >> thanks, your honor. >> pennsylvania's republican governor appears to be turned against his democratic challenger. according to the latest quinnipiac poll. they're holding their final debate tonight. you can watch live coverage at seven eastern on c-span. tomorrow it's the illinois governor debate. first lady michelle obama was in illinois yesterday campaigning for governor pat quinn's reelection. a statewide poll finds he is

edging ahead of his republican challenger. c-span will have live coverage of tomorrow night's debate at nine eastern. >> this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, a memorial service for president reagan's press secretary james brady.

>> join a c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.

>> two candidates for maryland governor's race spent tuesday at wjz-tv studios in baltimore for the first governor debate. lieutenant governor anthony brown and larry hogan faced off on issues ranging from taxes, education and the environment. the politico report lists the race is leaning democratic. this is about one hour. ♪ >> this is wjz-tv. baltimore. >> direct from television know, the candidates for governor debate now from inside the wjz studios. here's a vic carter. >> moderator: good evening, everyone and welcome. over the next hour we will hear from both candidates running for governor of maryland. tonight's debate sponsored by wjz-tv and the "baltimore sun." we want to thank the candidates for being with us. the democratic candidate

lieutenant governor anthony brown. and the republican candidate mr. larry hogan. each candidate will have up to one minute 30 seconds to make an opening statement then we will move on to the issues. i'm joined by "baltimore sun" editorial page editor andy green. we will establish a topic and to ask one of the candidates a question. each of them will then get up to one minute 45 seconds to present his views. the first candidate to answer within the given one minute for rebuttal. at the end of the debate each candidate will be given one minute for closing statements. we want to thank the many wjz viewers have e-mailed us the questions for the candidates over the past week. we read them all and included many in tonight's topics. a coin toss before the broadcast determined that lieutenant governor anthony brown will begin first with opening statements. mr. brown. brown: thank you. i want to thank the sponsors, the vjc and the "baltimore sun." want to thank our audience here in the studio that are watching

this broadcast. look, maryland is a great state and together we've accomplished a great deal in the last several years. we have built the best in the nation public schools. we lead the nation in college affordability. we have driven crime debt and we are one of six states have come to the great recession with a aaa bond rating. let's be clear, this election is not about the past. this election is about the future and what's next for maryland. i spent 30 years in the army. i had the opportunity to lead soldiers, trained them, to care for soldiers and found them to send them on missions and often in very unforgiving environments can even in the leadership, training, resources they could complete their mission, come on seven to the families and the nation we all love. i had the privilege of serving with patriotic men and women on campaigns and service to our country. i am on a different mission. the fight is different but it's just as important to maryland families.

this november voters are going to decide, they'll make a choice, wake up every morning fighting for working families and middle-class life and that's the division we share with so many marylanders. when we wake up favoring a small group of the largest wealthiest corporations who need help the least at the expense of the middle class. we will wake up everyda every dh you, maryland, to fight for working families and middle-class values. hogan: thank you very much, mr. brown. another republican candidate larry hogan. hogan: well, first i'd like to thank wjz and the "baltimore sun" for giving us this opportunity. i'd like to thank all of you at home for caring enough to take the time to watch. i'm not a professional politician but i'm just a small businessman and a lifelong marylander who loves this state. i'm running for governor because i'm fed up with politics as usual in an apples and because i believe our state is way off track and heading in the wrong direction. 40 consecutive tax hikes have

taken an additional $10 billion out of the pockets of struggling maryland families and small businesses. it's crushed our economy. we have lost 8000 small businesses. unemployment has doubled. 200,000 maryland are out of work. we're third in the nation in foreclosures. we've had zero economic growth and our state economy ranked 49th out of 50 states. we've had the largest mass exodus of taxpayers fleeing our state of any state in the mid atlantic region and one of the worst in the nation. sadly nearly half of all marylanders want to leave the state. that is simply unacceptable. the people of maryland deserve better. that's what i am running for governor and that's why i need your help and your vote so we can turn this economy around and bring real change to annapolis. >> moderator: let's get right to question. mr. brown, seems the consensus of people we've heard from that taxes in maryland are simply too

high. for example, suzy asked if you were elected will you commit to lowering taxes were least commit to not raising taxes or creeping new taxes for individual taxpayers and families? brown: let me be clear. i don't see the need to raise taxes. there will be no new taxes in the brown administration. let's complete the picture. we were a face with 40% increase in college tuition, overcrowded classrooms, the most congested streets on the highway and marylanders did their part to protect our schools, safe neighborhoods and thereby but also that we can sure that we have a vibrant economy and communities to attract families and business to maryland. there will be no new taxes. what i propose an effect i think mr. hogan and i agree in the need for tax relief. but where we differ is that my tax relief starts with a middle

class. it starts with small and entrepreneurial businesses, innovators and job greeters. the u.s. chamber of commerce looks at our small entrepreneurial is this committee and ranks it number one in the country the that's where we start t to small businesses that create two out of every three middle-class jobs. what i disagree with is mr. hogan's approach, providing a $309 tax giveaway annually to the smallest groups of the largest corporations, many of them headquartered out of the state of maryland who need it the least. in a brown-ulman administration we will fight for working families and middle-class jobs which means we're supporting small entrepreneurial businesses, with targeted tax credits so they can create the jobs that put marylanders to work. >> moderator: mr. hogan, your response. hogan: what the lieutenant governor just said sounds pretty good. unfortunately, it's the complete opposite of his eight-year record of failure. you can't say that you're going

to help middle-class families and struggling islanders win for the past eight years you passed 40 consecutive tax hikes that are crushing struggling maryland families. most of the 40 tax increases that you and your part for martin o'malley have pushed healthy people at the lowest end of the income scale the most. those are the people are struggling to another every day. i've been from one end of the stick together. people have had enough. 71% think taxes are too high. is the primary focus of my campaign. there you go again with this nonsense about the corporate giveaways. look, i talked about the fact we need to rollback as many of the 40 tax increases as possible and 38 are regressive taxes that hurts people at the lowest end of the income scale. you are the one who's talking about giving away special tax credits for specific corporations and big corporation to talk about tax would for all

marylanders. and quite friendly to corporate giveaways we're having now is we're giving away our corporation to virginia, giving them way to north carolina, giving them away to other states because they're altering our state. we lost 8000 businesses. taxpayers are something. they just can't take it anymore and that's exactly what i am running. you say you now agree but why haven't you been anything about it for the past eight years? that's the question. you been in charge. you preside over the largest tax increases in history. now you say you want, you'll have a blue-ribbon commission to review taxes will. been when the last time we heard that was? in 2007 right before the largest tax increases in history. we don't need more of that. we need real tax cuts. >> moderator: mr. brown, rebuttal. brown: what marylanders remember and they don't want to go back to was the largest expansion state government under your administration, $300 billion in increases in taxes and fees, and you jacked up college tuition by 40% as the secretary, you

appointed 10 of the 14 members to the board of regents devoted to increase college tuition by 40%. you left classrooms overcrowded, no plan to reduce congestion on the streets on the roads of maryland the marylanders remember those days and they do not want to go back to those days. this is not about the past but this is about the future. there will be no new taxes in aa brown-ulman administration to do we tax credits for small businesses. a small but success story in maryland started in his grandparents garage and just three with the announced -- the number two sports apparel company in the world. that's under armour and that's a maryland success story. under armour in its early years at tax credits to grow, they nurtured with a competitive workforce and they are now the number two sports apparel company in the world. >> during the last decade maryland has increased its investment in k-12 education. a policy under a periodic

review. meanwhile, baltimore city got approval for a novel school construction funding plan that will enable them to rapidly accelerate the replacement of aging buildings com come a poliy other counties have said they would be interested in volunteered be interested in following the tragedy value weighted the effectiveness and affordability of maryland spending on education and outline any changes you think would be necessary going forward? hogan: i think we've done a good job and spending money for education. we started with the early administration and continue with this administration to be doubled spending on education but the results have been mixed at best. we have some of the best schools in the country in maryland. unfortunately, we have some of the lowest performing schools in the country as well. the gap between the best and the worst schools is 50th in the nation. the gap between white students and minority students is the largest in the nation to both gaps have gotten wider over the past eight years. we need to invest money but we need to look at other ways to improve education. i want to push more dollars down

to the local level rather than having been beaten up in administered cost complicit in the classrooms. i want to make more decision at the local level with parents, students and teachers. we will push the pause button on common core which is been a complete disaster. reasoned discourse are some of the worst in recent memory. i pushed for charter schools. we are 50th in the nation in charter schools right now and i believe every single child in maryland deserves a quality education and we've got to work hard to try to make sure that happens. brown: once again we agree but i agree every child in maryland deserves access to a world-class education, and we've made tremendous progress in doing that. i do take issues with your fact we are closing the achievement gap on in, faster than any state in the nation and we are making very good progress in eliminating the achievement gap along racial and ethnic lines but it's because, this is what the question goes to, the

resources we're willing to invest in our schools. in my vision for a world class education that starts with investments and preachy education. every maryland for your old should have access to quality pre-k. if you ask university president our kindergarten teacher, how do we best prepare kids for college register the workforce they all say expanded pre-k. mr. hogan oppose the expansion of pre-k. he says we can't afford. i say we can't afford not to do it. i support investment in school construction but we are not going to raise taxes to do it and we won't jeopardize our aaa bond rating but we are the building with our aaa bond rating in maryland to make investment in schools and would have. i supported the $1.1 billion investment in baltimore city. i look forward to working with baltimore county, prince george's county in every county executive who wants to look for opportunities to deliver modern technology in the classroom. mr. hogan opposes that as well. in his most recent so-called

savings plan he calls for a $450 million cut to school construction. that would set us back years as we move children out of temporary learning trailers to technology ready classrooms that they can receive instruction that prepares them for college or the workforce. your cut would take maryland back to a place that they do not want to go. >> moderator: mr. hogan rebuttal. hogan: there he goes again confusing the facts. i support pre-k, number one. he runs commercial saying i don't support pre-k and i'm going to take $300 million out of the pockets of kids and give it to rich corporations. that's not true. i'm a big proponent of pre-k. we expanded pre-k to people who make 300% of the poverty level. $73,000 per year. but the lieutenant governor is talking about is expanding at to pay for a but in entire stay but he doesn't have a plant about how to publish that and he's not talking out how to pay for.

he's not talking of making this happen until 2022. basically it's a campaign promise that is trying to mislead voters into thinking he's going to make happened and i'm not. when, in fact, were both support the concept and idea of pre-k. the fact of the matter is, politicians make fun promises all the time they can't deliver. i'm just a small businessman. i don't want to over promise and under deliver so when i said i'm not sure how we will afford at this point when we have $405 million shortfall, a structural deficit come we've increased spending during your administration by $10 billion now you're proposing 7 billion in new spending. try for moving on, next question. in a recent news conference the maryland comptroller blasted the statestate economy and talk aboa projected shortfall in revenue. people like teresa and crownsville asked if elected how would you address the fiscal challenges facing the state? brown: thank you, teresa. i can certainly assure you that

while i agree with a lot of things the comptroller says i don't agree with him when he said we will raise taxes. we will not raise taxes in the brown-ulman administration. look, we've got a aaa bond rating the we have created 16,000 jobs in the state. the u.s. chamber of commerce recognize our strong entrepreneurial business community as number one in the country. we are going to ensure that we target tax credits and business tax deductions and we can support small and entrepreneurial businesses that create two out of every three jobs in maryland. these are middle-class jobs and opportunities for working families. the other thing we're going to do is to make sure in order to offer those tax credits and relief the middle class families, going to look at spending. i didn't mr. hogan and i agree that we need to look at spending in government but we fundamentally disagree on how we do that. my plan calls for strategic resources but it calls for

cooperaticooperati ve purchase agreement with counties so we can get more value at a lower cost. our vehicle fleet management continue to make strides in efficiencies and reducing our expenditures in medicaid, and now we just shifted to a new employee state health plan that will save us millions as we require state in place to focus more on wellness and prevention and less on chronic disease. my savings plan is considerably different than mr. hogan so-called savings plan which not only cuts $450 million from school construction but calls for re- hundred million dollars increase in the property tax. that's what your so-called savings plan does? >> moderator: mr. hogan. hogan: personal almost everything the lieutenant governor just said wasn't true. first of all he keeps saying he doesn't want to look at the past. deal to look to the future. he doesn't want to talk about his eight year record of failure. over the past eight years is a failed record of lost businesses, lost jobs, higher

spending and record tax increases. you increase spending by $10 billion. that's more than a rate faster than 46 other states. only three states in the country spending the way you did to you raised 40 taxes in took $10 billion out of the pockets of struggling maryland families. the last time you said there will not be any taxes, we don't perceive any taxes in the future, within the last election when you and martin o'malley said exactly the same thing. then you raised 40 taxes and with the that crushed families and small business. it's not about what somebody says. it's about what they have done. the lieutenant governor is asking for a major promotion. but he doesn't want us to look at his record. i think we got to look at the past eight years to say what's happened. you can't say you will cut spending when you increase spending by more than almost anyone else in the country. you propose in this campaign something like 7 billion in new spending. here's a fact for you. without you doing anything else,

the brown-ulman tax increases that have taken 10 going out of are struggling maryland families pockets is going to double over the next four years to $20 billion but it will cost the average american family $9200 more per year thanks to you and martin o'malley raising taxes. that's before you add new taxes. brown: i'm going to because i want to get the government off our backs and out of our pockets so we can grow the private sector, put people back to work and turn our economy around as he sat opposite of what's happened over the past eight years. >> moderator: rebuttal. brown: let's talk about records. over the course of the last eight years, let the base realignment effort, but 40,000 jobs bill. let's talk about record. i spearheaded the effort an integrated framework for public-private partnership where we a track that only private sector dollars but private sector ingenuity, projects like the $140 million private sector

investment in the port of baltimore that created 5000 jobs. not only those jobs by 1200 jobs coming to the board with amazon fulfillment center, bmw just announced that it's bringing increased volume of cars and increased jobs to the port. larry, the only plan that you've rolled out on this campaign is you talk about sort of blow is maryland's economy. the only plan is your so-called savings plan which is really with incompetence but it includes $450 million cut to school construction of increasing the property tax base. talk about cutting taxes. you are talking about increase in the property tax rate by $200 million you got a rounding error. this is not anthony brown. the "baltimore sun" did an independent analysis [talking over each other] >> moderator: i'm sorry, gentlemen but -- andy.

>> moving on to department. barrelled is under and epa mandate. storm water, to clean up the chesapeake bay. we've taken a number of steps including the storm water management fee. wilwhat would be your administration's approach towards the epa mandate speak with here's the issue burt neuborne the chesapeake bay is our most valued asset and it's a treasure for not only maryland but the entire country to clean up the da bay is going to be a p priority of the hogan at mr. schmidt will go about and target different than this administration. rather than blaming farmers and waterman and the rain that falls on the roof of your house, we will take other actions. the 43% of all the sediment in the day comes down the river. it's the number one issue. it's been completely ignored for ages. we will push back to the federal government both the epa and army corps of engineers was responsible for dredging these sediments. will push back to make sure pennsylvania and new york pay their fair share.

that's one of the major problems with having clean up the bay. and to protecting our vibrant. the most important problem we've had is the o'malley-brown administration. the media hasn't focused on the. this administration has rated $1.3 billion out of environmental trust fund. they took $460 million out of program open space. they took money out of the chesapeake restoration fund. they took money out of the chesapeake bay trust. when you buy the tags, they took the money out of there. $1.3 billion was rated in one of these trust funds. one thing we won't do, we won't raise the trust fund will try to replenish all the money and focus on the real problem in the bay and the so we will do in our administration. the rain tax is universally hated by most people in the state. that's the only solution didn't come up with. the rain that falls on your house, i can tell you i've been going from one end of the state to the other.

people everywhere just are disgusted with that. that's not the only solution. we've got to do more. brown: larry, there you go again painting a distorted picture. maryland and the entire nation came to a great recession, except for education. no program didn't see or instead another with them every program so reduction in expenditures and, unfortunately, programs that protecting private. larry cohen you and i stand in two completely different places. i stand in the tradition of marylanders who first century's understand we have to take a balanced approach to protecting the vibrant. you stand somewhere upstream in the river pointing your finger at pennsylvania and new york, accusing them of not doing what you're unwilling to do here in maryland. we need a robust program to reduce the storm or that carries pollutants into the bay. we need to work with farmers, the plowman working with fishermen, farmers to reduce runoff and we've done a great

job. we've got work to do. we need to work with local governments on water management. we need to work with developers to reduce the number of subjects in developing. we need to continue the progress we're making on treatment plants. this is a balanced approach. this assumes the responsibility. why? because a vibrant chesapeake bay, account for hundreds of businesses and tens of thousands of jobs in maryland. you can't be pro-business and not be pro-environment in maryland. whether it's the maritime operations at port of baltimore, the restaurants, the tourism industry relies on a clean day. we can't look to new in pennsylvania to do what we can what you are not willing to do. >> mr. hogan. hogan: that all sounded good but a lot of it was nonsense. first of all i do believe in a

balanced approach. i'm not talking about just pushing everything off. i talked about the fact you rob $1.3 billion out of environmental trus trust fund te could have done a lot of great work in the bank had we not been the. that's what the priority should be, number one. you and back again and blamed on the national recession as if we are recovering better, that you cut in every department. you didn't cut. increase spending by $10 billion. that's more than 46 other states. when you go from 29 going to budget to a 39 billion, it's an increase. there wasn't any belt tightening. taxpayers who were struggling during the recession, they had to tighten their belts. they had to make tough decisions but you didn't to your decision was to raise 40 taxes in a row and crushed maryland families and small businesses. you're talking about a balanced approach to business and the environment. we've killed 8000 businesses, lost 200,000 jobs. you can't make things a big he can't talk about the past figures as if it didn't happen. most states in the country are

recovering from we are not. we are 49th out of 50 states. >> moderator: thank you, mr. hogan. mr. brown, voters are concerned about the tone of this gubernatorial race. it's been called the most negative governors race in the country. diane asks why did it come to this? brown: i believe that campaigns are conversations with voters. about maryland future, conversations about records, how we build a better maryland. i also believe that voters ought to know where candidates stand on a wide range of issues but it's not for a candidate to say that this issue is important in this election and another one isn't. so that's why we've made the point in the brown-ulman administration to highlight mr. hogan's record on important issues, to ocean city. but mariners asked me, they say

where are you on public safety? more specifically the firearm safety protection act. of 2013. because mr. hogan is not talking about it. so we share with you mr. hogan's record but mr. hogan said and where the advertisements that communicate to voters, i don't support senate bill 281. what was senate bill 281? senate bill 281 banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. mr. hogan posted. senate bill 281 would've required a common sense background checks including fingerprinting and we fingerprint for over 130 reasons in maryland the we can do that before we sell a gun. mr. hogan a posted. mr. hogan opposes 281 which is commonsense public safety measures from rome. he will tell you we should rely on a federal database. why should we rely on the federal government when we of the tools to do with your? i think it's fair in campaign to present to voters and contrast on issues. i supported the firearm safety

act of 2013. i will enforce it, funded enforcement and ohio people unlike mr. hogan who will -- >> moderator: thank you. mr. hogan. hogan: the question was about why the campaign is so negative and that we are one of the most negative campaigns in the country and i would agree with that. it certainly has been coming from our site. the commercials we run for the most part have been very positive and focused only on economion theeconomic issues wee important that we think most maryland are focused on to my opponent, the lieutenant governor was unable in the to talk about a serious economic problem of maryland and unable to defend his age a record of failure has chosen to try to distract voters away from those important issues and talk about things that are not nearly as much on the minds of the voters in maryland that he is twisting and putting out these commercials that are completely false. we held a press conference, with her every single commercial. he has a new commercial that has assault weapons in school yards

by the swingset and in grocery stores and says that i of those background checks and i want to put assault weapons advanced of the mentally ill. i can assure you that is 100% false. i didn't think, for so i'm the only republican that rain in this race in the primaries that i would not repeal s.b. 281. we are not rolling back anything, number one. number two, i was concerned the law didn't go far enough in keeping him out of the hands, guns out of hands of the mentally ill and didn't do enough to ensure that we have instant point of sale background checks and join the federal mix system. maryland is the worst state in the country for reporting mental illness which is a huge problem when we talk about these issues. i didn't think to build a just debt which is why i opposed it. i'm a small business. i've never voted for anything. i'm just talking about my opinion on the bill and i've been very clear about where it is to your commercials on that and everything else are 100% misleading.

>> moderator: rebuttal. brown: opinions matter and voters ought to know what your opinion is. you say publicly as you did this evening that you won't roll back the firearm safety act but you spoke to a group of extreme gun owners and said don't worry, give me a pass in public because when i'm governor i'm going to use executive order to rollback the provisions for our unsaved economic point of superintendent and the state police who will interpret the law in a way because we'll be back on the street. that was in default exposé by the "washington post" but this is not me making this up. you have taken decisions you said a third year businessman, you've been a political operative for 30 just. you've taken a position, for example, to ban abortions, overturn roe v. wade and to limit contraception's. now you are having this can change your conversion where you say that, we take a different position. how can the voters trust if you're saying something different and public one year and something different and

private another your? voters ought to know your opinions and what you enforce. >> moderator: andy? >> governor martinelli has taken steps to welcome some of the unaccompanied minors across the border recently. he has tried to marshal assistance for them once they're here. what would be your administration's policy towards these immigrants and others who lack legal status in the united states? hogan: i will go back and take the privilege of responding to some of these off-base attacks it just came from the lieutenant governor. he says i have a 30 year record. i started a business 30 years ago, spent my life and the private sector. i did leave my business for four years to serve as a cabinet secretary, but he says i oppose abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, and that i want to take away birth control. that is just absolute not true. it's not my position now. it's never been my position in my entire life. you are taking some inaccurate article from 34 years ago that

was referring to my father and not me. i don't have a 30 year record of opposing this. i said we're not going to rollback anything, nothing is going to change with respect to reproductive rights, whether i'm governor or the lieutenant governor is elected. that's another one of the false ads. it's just wrong. i think he should apologize to the women of maryland for trying to scare them. let's go back to this issue on immigration. first of all we are a nation of immigrants. my wife who is here with me today, she's a first generation american. she emigrated from south korea. my family came from ireland, all four of my grandparents. we are a beacon of hope and freedom and understand why we want to be welcoming to immigrants wan who want to comeo the united states. however, we're also a nation of laws. we've got to figure out, i don't like people who want to come to the united states and break the rules. i understand they want a better life for themselves and their

children who i blame is the president and the congress, both republicans and democrats in washington for failing to come up with any kind of a copper his immigration policy or strategy, and for allowing it to happen. brown: i'm a first generation american. my father came to this country out of poverty and kingston jamaica for a better way of life for himself and his family. he wanted to not a enjoy the benefits of america but make a contribution to the greatness that is america. this is the land of immigrants. some of our families of right six decades ago like mine. some six weeks ago, and some centuries ago but each of us has the opportunity or should be afforded the opportunity to make a contribution to the greatness that is our nation. there is failed immigration policy or the inability to enact immigration reform in congress. and that is really the source of the problem.

we are not going to fix that in maryland, but the question is what does the government do to be able to manage undocumented immigrants who are in maryland? .. provided the federal government reimburses maryland. a foster care system. we can accommodate the small group of children. let's protect them,