governor's debate. john bel edwards faces off against republican senator david vitter ahead of the state's runoff election on november 21st. the debate is hosted by louisiana public broadcasting. our live coverage begins in just a moment here on c-span2.

>> find out where the candidates stand on the major issues and the next problem the governor will address first tonight on governor's debate 2015; the runoff. >> good evening, i am beth courtney. thank you for joining us. we have a 40 year tradition of contributing to the democratic process and we continue that through the debate and other public forums. we welcome the entire audience this evening. thank you. >> i am berry erwin, president of the council for better louisiana and thank you for joining us. our debate features candidates in the runoff for louisiana governor. first state representative john

bel edwards and state senator david vitter. thank you for joining us. >> kelly spires is one of the questioners and jeremy is here from editor and publish of lawpolitics.com. >> tonight we will dive into issues and topics of great importance to the citizens of louisiana. a drawing was held earlier to determine the order of questions and closing statements. the format is to encourage a dialogue between the candidates. >> we will talk about the governoring style of the candidates, element and second educati education, the budget and taxes, workforce development, health care, infrastructure, and issues related to each candidate's campaign. our panelist provide background on a topic and pose a question to start the conversation. then candidates will have a turn to ask each other questions.

the panelist ask follow-up questions to insure clarity and responsiveness in the answers. >> we will begin with exploring the governoring styles of the candidat candidates. kelly starts it off. >> one of the two of you will be the next ceo of the state. what experience have you had in executive management? mr. vitter? >> i managed my senate office for several years and if you talk to folks who interact on a number of issues, particularly louisiana residents, they will say it is a responsive center office. i am hands-on. that is my style and different than jindel who has been said to be aloof. hundreds of thousands have my personal cellphone number.

i am completely accessible and get into the weeds of important issues. i have great staff to help me. i help direct them. but i get in the weeds and lead them. again, the proof is in the pudding and i think in that, i built a solidht pbte -- a solid background to get it right. >> second air born division. that is an ex executive position

as commander. when we go to the field and train that number grows to 250. i worked being a chairman in the committee requiring me to call meetings and issue the agenda whether it was the military and veteran's special committee in the house of representatives, which i reserected that committee. i worked with veterans from strengthening homes to making sure cemeteries were open and para officers were in place and the veterans could access the services they were entitled to. >> mr. vitter you will ask mr.

edwards a question and mr. edwards you have a minute to respond and mr. vitter gets a 30 second review. the topic is governing style. >> john bel, you talk about shared sacrifice given the enormous challenges we face as a state. but when i look at your concrete record, and others look, i don't see the shared sacrifice from yourself and other insiders. i see something different. after coming into office, you voted for yourself getting 123% pay raise. you noted for yourself to get a per diem increase. you opposed a bill to mandate governments and illegal gifts. you expressed opposition to the

concept of term limits. this really does go to governing style. what real sacrifice will you ask of political insiders and politicians? not just hard working taxpayers who have to pay more and more for government. >> senator vitter, you have been lying sideways to the public. you make $40,000 more a year now than when you got elected to the senate. that is more than i make -- you make more per month than i make into year. so i am not taking a back-seat to you on any of the issues you raised. in fact, i voted for every single bill in the first ethics reform special session we had in 2008. so shared sacrifice, absolutely, there is shared sacrifice. i have led my example. i am very proud of the work i have done in the legislature on a whole range of issues.

and you know, you asked so many different things there rather than one question. but i will tell you as it relates to term limits, i believe that there are term limits already. every office has a certain term whether it is four or six years. and the voters are able to decide if you stay in the office or not. they are able, when they want to, to turn someone out of office. and i think you will experience that pretty soon. >> well, again, i think this illustrates big differences between us in terms of philosophy about governing. i have always fought against the political establishment because quite frankly i think the political establishment is way too isolated from normal voters. they don't understand normal voters every day lives. that is why i fought automatic pay raises, that is why i never joined the congressional retirement system and will never get a penny. that is why i fought the

obamacare exemption and don't get that subsidy. and led the fight to establish term limits in louisiana. i believe in that concept and think we need to return to citizen legislatures not politics as a profession. >> thank you, mr. vitter. now mr. edwards, it is your turn to pose a question. >> david, in the past 16 years you only passed five of 566 bills you authored. you have been called the most corrupt member of congress and been named the least effective member of both parties and don't show up to work. the best indicator of what someone does tomorrow is what they did yesterday. and you show you are more concerned with helping your friends than being accountable to voters and taxpayers. how is it you don't represent a third bobby jindel term?

>> you are completely misrepresenting my record. you talk about bills you introduced that passed. you have to look at things i fought for and worked with others on on a bipartisan bases or was a prime author on that did pass. that record of bipartisan accomplishment i will put next to anybody certainly including yours. a water resources bill i co-wrote with barbara boxer of california is important for coastal measures. fixing the flood insurance crisis, i helped lead that effort, yes with others on a bipartisan bases. coastal restoration i have been involved in that and making huge progress made in the last several years to fund the work we need to do. hurricane recovery. i worked non-stop with our delegation, with others, to pull

us out of the dark time in terms of recovery from katrina and rita. i have a full record of bipartisan accomplishment. >> your rebuttal. >> 5-565 bills does speak for itself. you have been named the least effective members of congress. you have one of the worst att d attendance record of all hundred members in the united states state senate and you said you endorse bobby three times. i like him and respect his leadership and agree with all of this political values is your record. >> follow-up questions, reporters. >> i would like to bring it back to the state legislature and how you will interact with lawmakers. would you all have a plan to testify in front of committees or would you not? >> i would as i said a few minutes ago.

i am a very hands-on person. i would be interacting with individual legislatures as i do now. most have my personal cell and i interact with them constantly. i would be on the floor or off the floor in committees. that is a different governing style we have seen in the last several years. i exhibited that governor style in the u.s. senate with real effectiveness. >> mr. edwards, would you like to continue? >> i will testify i lead from the front. i lead by example. i will testify in support of the bills i am proposing to the legislature. i will meet with the leadership, and rank and file members of the legislature in the house and senate. i will tell you i have not had a meeting with bobby jindel in many months. >> we need to move on to the next topic. >> k-12 education.

jeremy, you have the question. >> we have seen significant reforms and changes over the last 20 years including school accountability measures for teachers and students, growth in the recovery school districts, charter schools, and this is in addition to vouchers and school choice mechanisms. aside from common core, could you pick a couple you would keep or strengthen or get rid of from the list i just went through. mr. edwards? >> i will support charter schools. when charter schools help the perishes and the perishes are in need of help. however, i believe in local control of education. i believe that local taxpayers and voters and parents ought to be able to hold their school board members accountable for how dollars are spent and children are educated. if a district has an a or b better grade, i believe they should have the final decision of a new charter school opening in that district or not. if the letter grade is a c, d,

or f, i think it is probably appropriate for the board to have the opportunity to review and perhaps reverse the denial of that charter application. i also have no plans to end the voucher system. it was unconstitutional when it was passed. i voted against it for that reason and the supreme court held it was unconstitutional. i will not end it but i will confirm to its stated purpose which is to give parents of kids trapped in failing schools a choice. >> jeremy, this is a huge issue where john bel and i have different records. on all of the reform efforts i have been an active leader for charter and voucher scholarships. choice empowers parents particularly from poor families. accountability, i have been in support of that.

john bel's record is consistent in the opposite direction against charters. he would limit those opportunities as we just admitted voting against the voucher scholarship proposal when it first came up. voting consistently against accou accountability over and over again because fundamentally he has been doing the work and charting the course of the teacher's union not parents, not empowering parents who need it the most. >> thank you, mr. edwards. it is now your opportunity to pose a question to mr. vitter on the education topic. >> just like bobby jindel, you were for common core before being against it. you were a strong supporter and then against it in a fundrais g fundraisinging letter, then for it again, and you now flip-flopped again and want people to believe you are

against it. you have put your personal interest ahead of the common interest and when the political winds change so do you. just like bobby jindel you put personal ambition over what is best for students and teachers. on this issue, why should louisiana parents trust you today? >> you are talking about common core first of all. it is you who said at the press club, with the respect to the common core standards you were okay with the sarntands. in the advocate you said in 2014 quote the standards are fine close quote. you said there is no conspiracy about common core and this is not a federal takeover of education. you said that about common core. not me. i have a specific plan to get us out of common core and the park test. it has been part of my plan in the race. it is all at davidvitter.com and

part of my detailed plan on the challenges we face. >> senator, i have been voting against common core since brought to the legislature in 2014. that is my record. 2014 and in 2015. i did make statements such that the standards themselves are not a communist conspiracy but i never said the standards should be adopted without being vetted by parents and educators and made the changes where necessary. that is my record from the beginning. i have been against common core. my voting record is hundred percent consistent on that. i have never flip-flopped. you flip-flopped and flip-flopped again. >> mr. vitter, it is your turn to ask a question on k-12 education. >> i want to go back to the choice in education because i think it is premier civil right issue of time. whether every child in louisiana has the right to a great

education. as discussed before, you were in favor of limiting the opportunity to establish charter schools and you would not allow it unless an entire system is drf. that would cut out 6800 students in lafayette perish for example who are in d or f schools from being able to enjoy new charter schools. state-wide that is 170,000 kids who are in d or f schools. >> your question? >> you are limiting those charter opportunities. what do you say to those poor families who are not going to get the full charter opportunities because of your specific legislation? >> first of all, when it comes to voucher, i voted against this because it was unconstitutional. my oath of office means something to me. when it says you will support the constitution of the united states and the laws of the state of louisiana i take it

seriously. my decision was affirmed by the supreme court. money stolen from the local school districts had to be returned so the students could receive the services they were entitled. i believe in local control of education. when a school district is performing well it ought to be in control of the decision of a new charter school opening. otherwise, the creation of a charter school diverts funding away from the programs that made that school district successfully to begin with. i believe that is the right thing to do. because if parent and leaders don't have the ability to hold them accountability it is only a matter of time until they stop authorizing new taxes. >> there are failing schools in the districts you are talking

about. you will limit and trap the students without more choices and voucher scholarships would give them. the record is the record. you can try to talk a good game but on education you have fought all of these reforms every step of the way. you fought the voucher scholarships. you tried to limit charters. you co-authored at least four different bills to curtail charter schools. certainly accountability. you have not consistently opposed common core but you have opposed accountability and that is what you are trying to point to in terms of supposed opposition of common more. >> thank you. we are out of time on this topic but we go to the next one with kelly and posed to mr. vitter >> louisiana has been dealing with significant budget cuts. the legislature raised more than $700 million in new revenue yet another huge shortfall looms. given where we stand today, do

we solve the problem by shrinking state government or should we better match revenue with spending? >> kelly, quite frankly we need to do both. i have a balanced approach on both sides of the equation. i laid out the approach months ago in our detailed plan on our website at davidvitter.com. the first thing i would do is call a special legislation session focused on this. i would start on the spending side and have reforms to undedicate most areas of the budget so we can roll up the sleeves and cut the spending in those areas we cannot afford or are wasteful and off limits. that is why higher-ed has cuts that are not porportioniate. and we need to get rid of certain exemptions and credits

that don't produce for the economy or taxpayers. i think as opposed to john bel i would have a balanced approach that looks at both sides of the equation. >> mr. edwards? >> kelly, we have to do both. you look for new ways to create efficiency and deliver state services with a cost savings. you have to expand the flexibility to allocate cuts across a broader spectrum of the budget so you are not focusing on higher education and health care. you do that by looking at the statutory dedications. but also the constitutional dedications. but those are harder and take longer because you have to get two 3rds vote in the legislature and approvaled by the voters themselves. we will september federal dollars back into the louisiana as well. when they help meet obligations to the people and save us we will do that with the medicaid

expansi expansion. we will focus on growing the economy and not incentivising the government where there is no growth. the biggest thing is reduce or eliminate tax gave aways that cost too much or don't return. we can create savings to reallocate to high rer priority items >> you may ask the question on budget and tax. >> john bel talks about a balanced approach but his record is different. it is another area where we have completely different records which suggest would lead in different directions. this past year in the legislative session you voted for $2.1 billion in taxes. you have a plan on your website you are touting that is a $1.5

billion tax increase on the 165,000 families involved. you have never specifically authored a single piece of legislation to undedicate any area of the budget. you have never authored a singleal piece of legislation to cut in those areas. that is not a balanced record. why should voters believe you in saying that you are going to take a balanced approach when the concreate record is very, very different. it is all taxes -- concrete -- >> the voters shouldn't believe you and the ridiculous question you asked with figures you made up. my record is clear. i did vote for the things i talked about. reducing tax give aways that cost too much and don't produce enough return on investment to create savings that we then reallocate to higher priorities like saving lsu, like making

sure the safety net hospital system stayed open, making sure the medical school in sheave port had the money to continue to operate. those were the hard choices we had to make. i did vote for those measures because they were the right thing to do and consistent with what i said i will continue to do as our governor. we will not stay in this ditch we are in under jindel. we will roll up the sleeves and pull ourselves out and finance our priorities. that is my commitment. >> i asked about a balanced approach and what is on the saving and reform of government side. you talked about a tax measure: getting rid of an exemption. >> your record is all taxes, no budget reform, and no savings.

that is the record. you have not authored a single bill to undedicate any part of the budget. if i can missing, name the bill. you have not authored a single bill to go into the areas and cut the budget. you have never proposed or led in that effort. but you voted for $2.1 billion in taxes this year and you are proposing more. >> your pledge to out of state interest cause you to repeatedly to vote to send our jobs overseas. jobs of louisiana residents and americans. bobby caused the state's dodge budget to employed. you have been unfaithful to use taxpayers and why should they believe you changed? >> i have taken no pledge to glover nor quest in dealing with

challenges in the state budget and laid out a truly balanced approach in terms of doing that. you refer to bobby jindel constantly but the fact of the matter is i have on several occasions publically fought, butted heads, and disagreed with bobby on things. his use of one-time money to plug the budget hole, you voted a lot for that, but i opposed him in 2012. i led the charge to stop abusive legacy lutawsuits. i dragged him kicking and screaming to propose and pass that reform. in contrast when have you every publically disagreed strongly with your party leader barack obama? when did you stand up at the 2012 national democratic convention and say he is wrong

on this? he is wrong on obamacare or gay marriage or anything else? it has never happened in any public way. >> mr. edwards? >> you are wrong. you signed the glover anti-tax reform. you said you have not signed it but you lied. you signed the pledge in washington, d.c. and in fact, i have stood up against the president with respect to the moratorium. i voted for a resolution calling on him to direct the secretary of interior to take that moratorium down. just the other day, i stood up and opposed the decision not to go forward with the keystone pipeline because that is the wrong decision for our country and our state. it would create jobs, allow for energy independence and if you believe sitting here tonight that the president poses the biggest threat to our future in louisiana, you need to stay in wash and deal with that. >> time is over for this topic,

we need to move on. >> we can continue that conversation because in the next topic we are talking about and that is workforce development. jeremy, your question. >> we have been told there is an industrial boom coming for qualified workers particularly in the technology field. in southwest louisiana there is a need of 35,000 jobs over the next five years. me century link in monroe is trying to bring in engineers and technical workers to fill jobs but are finding it difficult. can you give two or three examples of what you will do to address the need over the next four years? >> this is critically important -- and one generation's time we are going from a time when 25% of people needed education beyond high school to get a good job and now

that number is two thirds of the people. you have to invest in higher education, four year university and community and technical colleges. the straight of louisiana has cut state support for higher education more than any other state in the nation over the last eight years and raised tuition on its kids more than any other state in the nation in the same time period. that is the perfect recipe for disaster. we have to do better and align the workforce needs with job creation opportunities out there so that kids are getting the education that allows them to have the certified skills and training necessary to land the jobs. we have to do it around the state. you were talking about century ling in monroe. since the end of the session in 2010, job creation is positive but when you get to alexandria

and north to is zero. a key to address this is invest in the higher education around the state. >> jeremy, i have a lot of proposals on my website. our mari skare -- maritime sector it very important. i proposed structural reform so we would focus on ports, maritime and have leaders built into led and dot to help me do that. a subcabinet focused on growing those jobs. secondly, we need to be more effective in terms of addressing the burden of litigation. we need litigation reform because we are hurting because of abusive lawsuits led by trial

lawyers, who by the way are funding vitter's campaign. i laid out reforms for this like texas did in the 1990's and that was a major factor leading to their very robust economy. there are other detail proposals in the plan. >> mr. edwards, question for mr. vitter. >> david, you have consistently voted against job training against louisiana's veterans many who are seeking employment after their dedication and service. what kind of plan is it if you not dedicate your time to this? >> i have a strong record in terms of supporting our veterans. it starts with individual cases. helping them get the proper treatment and benefits they need. i spend a lot of time personally, along with my great staff, helping veterans on those issues with great results. talk to the veterans who have interacted with my office. talk to them and ask them how

they feel about my representation of them. we are getting community-based clinics >> the question is about job training. >> job training at the va. i sponsored legislation as the chair of the small business community to put increased fluence through the va specifically for veterans as they make the transition from war time to work. i helped lead that effort. >> david, your record is you voted against the gi's educational bill for veterans moving it from $1100 to $1500 in 2008. in 2012 you voted no on the

veteran's job core act that would have invested 1 billion in veterans. you voted no on the national defense appropriation act to help prepare members of the armed forces for civilian employment. your record is horrible. it is your turn mr. vitter. >> economic development and workforce development is critical. you are trying to portray this myth that you are a conservative or moderate. you are in the middle. you are going to unite and you have a mainstream record. but if you look at the record it is different. leading pro-business groups and economic development groups give you a low score. national federation of independent business, 23% rating. the top economic development group in the state, louisiana

association of business and industry, 25% lifetime rating. that is lower than mitch and mary landry and bill jefferson. that is the bottom 10% of shh legislature. why should voters think that is a pro-economic, workforce development record, that will grow jobs and the economy? >> theluti louisiana associatio businesses gave 90 legislatures f grades and i was one because it didn't like the way we supported the universities, hospitals and people of louisiana. i will tell you the louisiana association of business and industry is headed by someone who is a very strong supporter and former executive council and chief of staff to bobby jindel. today they endorsed you because they want a third jindel term except they would like to have it on steroids.

when it comes to voting records, i don't intend to give anybody a hundred percent except for my wife. >> again, john bel, you try to portray yourself as a conservative. the record is the report -- record and it suggests something different. i am not talking about this year giving these f's this year. i am talking about a lifetime rating of 25%. i am talking about comparing that life time rating to mitch landrieu and they all score higher. i am talking about the fact you are in the bottom 10% in terms of ratings about jobs and economic development. that is not conservative or moderate or anything of the like. >> time to move on to another topic and kelly will talk about health care. >> yes, in the realm of

education, similary our state has seen changes in the way public health care is delivered. would you keep the policies we have now and work out the issues we face or go into different direction all together? mr. vitter? >> you mentioned a few things. the public-private partnerships are a good reform but need work. i specifically have been proactive leading the charge to improve the pub linebacker partnership in louisiana. i support log chip and thing it is important and needs to be in the mix. medicaid expans is a huge issue in this area. we have strong differences on that. john bel would immediately lunge into the medicaid expansion under obamacare and barack obama's terms. i would only consider it under

louisiana's terms. kentucky's cost soared beyond anything they projected. kentucky's cost are double what they projected. they are facing a budget crisis and just elected a new republican governor largely on that issue. those are the differences. >> i support the move for the public-private partnerships and we have to make it work. the state owes the federal government $190 million because of the plan being illegal to draw down dollars we were not entitled to. we have to strengthen that.

we went to a manage care plan administered by five insurance companies. we are going to expand the medical program when i am governor. it is the louisiana plan we already reformed it. they would have saved $52 million this year alone. that is how it was scored. 30 states have done it. 13 with republican governors. this isn't right versus left. this is right versus wrong and i will do it as governor. >> the biggest issue around health care is obamacare. the core of obamacare and medicaid expansion. john bel, you have supported all of that including the core m mandates of obamacare. hb-429, clear vote. and that fundamental mandate is what through 98,000 louisiana residents off the health care plans they had and wanted to

keep. obamacare said no, we are not allowing that. we know better and that is not good enough. that fundamental mandate led to increased in cost. folks are getting their premiums now and they are soaring. what do you say to middle class louisiana families who got thrown off a plan they wanted to keep and face the soaring premiums >> i say the affordable care act came from congress and that is where you sit. we are not voting in louisiana on mandates for obamacare. you are making that up. if you are worried about health insurance premiums going up you should support medicaid expansion. every family with private insurance is paying $1,000 a year extra to pay for the private care and because the hospitals are not getting compensated they are building it into the contracts and that results in higher premiums. we are paying the taxes to the federal government and not

accepting them back so that 250,000 of the worker poor get the benefit of health care coverage with our tax dollars that are instead going to other states that did that we are paying more in terms of private insurance. that is a disaster for this state. we need to do better by our people. we need to bring those dollars home. we need to save the tax dollars in the process. it is just the right thing to do. it is called putting louisiana first and i know that is foreign, david, but we need to do that. >> the record is the record. it is all at lagovernorfacts.com in case you want to look. very specific vote in 2014. hb-429. it was a vote by you and you sided with the president. that is siding with the people of louisiana. that is what through 98,000 louisiana residents off the

health care they wanted to keep. they used a model i am proposing. they didn't say we will do it under our terms. they negotiated their own terms. you have a chance to pose a question. >> while in congress, you voteded to end medicare for 70,000 louisiana seniors. that has no place in government. the seniors deserve to know whether you plan to balance our budget on their backs as well. how can you justify ending one of the most successful insurance programs in history and ask the seniors to pay more. >> john bel, you know i am for medicaid and have voted to end it as you know it. you know that is the case. this attack is exactly what we hear from the national democrats. i hear this from harry reid over and over on the senate floor. i hear it from barack obama over and over. i never said i want to end made

care as we know it. i never voted that way. one of several reasons i voted against obamacare is it stole from medicare. it stole $750 billion to create a new entightment and weakened medicare. that is why record on medicare. -- entitlement -- i am proud of my record. you are spreading the old fears and lies of national democrats. we hear it all of the time from harry reid, barack obama and all of the rest. >> you hear it all of the time because it is your record in. in 2013 and 2014 you voted budgets that would turn medicare into voucher system and increased the cost on seniors and made them pay the difference. that is your record. that is the paul ryan budget you have supported. the people of louisiana need to

know that you will treat them better. they deserve better retirement plans and need a governor who will not budget the balance on their back. >> if we are moving from one thorny topic to another one and that is the state's infrastructure; roads, highways, ports and everything questioned. jeremy? >> i am sure you know what number i am going to say which is $12 billion. the back log of projects in louisiana. there is not enough to address the larger problem. how would you generate more money or is it time to concede this is too big of an issue to deal with? how do we break the tradition?

>> until you fix the trust fund, it is premature to ask the people of louisiana to pay more whether that is a toll or additional gasoline tax. up to $60 million has been leaving the transportation trust fund not paying for roads and bridges but going to the state police. that is wrong and not the expectation of the taxpayers when they paid the gas taxpayer. i will get the trust fund under control in the first year. i will wean the state police out of the trust fund and that is $60 million. i am increase by 25% the amount of the capital bill and that is an additional $75 million per year. as soon as we do that, we will double the investment in the port priority program from 20

million to 40 million overnight. that is the right thing to do. once we clean it up and see we don't have enough revenue to go forward and maintain the system we have in terms of highways then and only then will we consider tol tolls or other revenue measures. >> we cannot ask the hard working citizens of louisiana to put more money in the bucket whether there are gaping holes at the bottom of the bucket. that is the situation now and john bell voted for that situation. that is the situation now. last year only 11 cents of every dollar of revenue associated with the state transportation trust fund went to roads and bridges. went to concrete and asphalt. that is ridiculous. i have a detailed plan to change that. it is all at davidvitter.com. i have a second plan to lead an effort among chambers, business

groups, and leading legislatures to develop a high priority building program. high priority projects in key areas of the state to spur economic development linked to new revenue, tied to that. go to the voters and citizens and say this is what we will build in a finite amount of time. if you support it we will not spend the money any other way. it would go to voters and citizens to earn their approval. >> a question on infrastructure, mr. vitter. >> david, you have been rated the least effective member of congress, the fifth highest absence rate among 554 peers and nowhere does it show in any other area than transportation. you have not helped finish i-49 or back up the projects jeremy asked us about. you even worked against securing

loan forgiveness after hurricane katrina for local governments. >> why don't you talk to local leaders and officials about my record. you will hear a different story. >> no, i didn't. >> i have been a leader on i-49 including as a high ranking republican on that committee. we have brought significant money to virtually finish i-49 north and to start i-49 south in a major way. through that work on that committee i have helped turn louisiana from a donor state. we were spending more money through federal gas tax to the federal government than we received back whether i went to congress it was about 93 cents on the dollar. we are no longer a donor state. we are getting more back than we send to the federal government because of the reforms and the work i did with others.

and there are lots of specific projects. la-1, i-49, many critical projects around louisiana, relief in baton rouge and greater new orleans that have benefited as a result. we need to go farther and i am working on a federal highway bill. >> david, the fact of the matter is you have been ineffective in the senate and worked against the local government in louisiana when they sought loan forgiveness after hurricane rita and katrina. >> i secured the loan forgi forgiveness. >> i get my information from the local people who lead the municipalities and perishes. >> mr. vitter, you can continue the conversation with the question. >> john bel is misrepresenting the record. i helped secure the loan

forgiveness. talk to the leaders who received it in key perishes. but john bel, you are always talking about fighting the former governor, in fact, there have been eight budgets you voted for and supported five of them. on this critical issue of infrastructure they were horrendous and stole from the transportation trust fund. you voted for 5-8 budgets. hundreds of millions and voted for the very budget i was referring to under which only 11 cents of every dollar of that revenue goes to roads and bridges and steel and concrete. why should voters believe as governor you will do something different? lagovernorfacts.com. that is your record. >> i have voted for five budgets and that means i voted more

budgets than the vast majority of my colleagues. the reason it is different is because i am going to be the governor. i am going to set the priorities. if you don't vote for the budget you don't pass a budget and nothing gets funded. but as governor, i will be able to control the process and make sure with that line item veto we will do the things i am talking about. just the most recent years we voted for revenue to take it clear that the state police can get out of the transportation trust fund. that is going to happen in the first year. zero dollars are going to be aappropriated to the police. that is my commitment to the people of louisiana. we have the revenue in place to make sure that happens. i did support that revenue because i want to be in a position to make sure that we can restore faith and confidence to the people of louisiana in

the trust fund. >> again, john bel, there is an enormous gap between your rhetoric and the vote. you talk about battling bobby jindel but supported 5-8 of his budgets. you voted for the state fund and it was rated over and over, hundreds of millions, and you voted for the budget under which 11 cents of every dollar, only 11 cents goes to transportation, and everything else is rated. that is the record. your red -- rhetoric is different. >> gentlemen, we have come to the last topic of the evening. time constraints say let's each do 30 second response on the first question. i give it to the reporters. >> gentlemen, both of you in recent forums have discussed

trackers following you and your family with video camera and the media in louisiana is writing about private investigators. have you and your campaign hired professionals to carry out the such behavior? if so, have they done anything you regret? >> it is the reality of campaigns i have lived with for years. i have lived with the trackers for many years and they associated with every campaign. we have not directly hired them. but others in support of my campai campaign. it is a free country. in terms of negative campaigns. there is nobody who has been the target of more negative campaigning than me. there are eight different

entities attacking me. three in the primary, three of their assoc aceationsation -- association. >> the short answer is no. senator vitter spent $156,000 on private investigation and lied saying the money was spent on legal fees. he said it is free country and he is sending private investigators to spy on the sheriff. louisiana doesn't need more scandal. i urge everybody to go to www.ltv.com and watch the cferee given. >> a question for mr. edwards. >> john bel, follow up on this. you never hired the parts but the state democratic party does

it on your behalf. you say you don't do negative campaigning but you have the most vicious negative ad up that veterans have been offended by and asked you to take at a down. you have nothing to do with the trial lawyer pac that has been running negative campaigns in the millions of dollars for months. isn't that disingenuine? you are not living by the honor code. you are living by the lawyers' code trying to parse words. >> mr. vitter, a question. >> nors -- my campaign has not played for a tracker or private investigator. i have not seen any footage of you anywhere from a tracker.

i understand you don't like it. it hits you where you live. >> i am not talking about me saying anything. you have missing out on your deals in congress in order to engage extra curriculum activities. >> >> you said the trial lawyers were working for jay garden. now it is benefiting you to say they are working for me. >> let's each one of you who have had a chance to ask a question we are almost to the closing comments.

why don't you get 30 seconds and you get 30 seconds. 30 seconds, vitter. >> again, john bel, you are being dis-in genuine to suggest the trial lawyers are not doing your dirty work. you are living by on honor code of technicality. >> i am not suggesting anything. i am not looking at video foot null from you. have haven't hired a private investigator to go after you. the last part of the honor code is i will not tolerate those who do. you are a liar. and a cheater >> what have you said -- >> i don't tolerate that. >> if you don't agree with tlar behavior why are you tolerating and benefiting from their

behavior? what we will do now is go to closing remarks. we are just about out of time for the hour debate. we thank you for your candid and energetic commentary. we will go to the closing remarks. >> this is certainly an important election. we have two candidates for governor. john bel edwards and myself who could not offer more starkly different voting records and political philosophy and therefore directions in which we would lead the state. it is pretty clear that john bel edwards wants to talk about anything but the future. he wants to talk about anything about those records and philosophies and where we would lead the state. that is because his campaign is built on a myth that he is some sort of conservative and we

don't differ much on the issues when we absolutely do. so, i humbly ask for your vote and support and ask you look on the key issues and how we differ on job creation. his ranking is at the bottom of the barrel. on education my support of charter and accountability and reforms and john bel has the opposite record supporting the teachers's unions not parents, families and children. >> thank you. mr. edwards? >> i want to thank the veterans. we are on the eve of veteran's day and i want to thank them for the service of the country. when i decided to serve the country nobody asked if was a democrat or republican. which candidate is best able to lead the state right now after eight years of miserable failed

poliauolicie policies? leadership to bring the people together, performance agreement, and tackle the biggest problems and challenges and provide real opportunity for our children in louisiana. that is my record in the legislature as a leader. i will fight against anyone of any party when they do harm to use. and i will find along the side of anyone of any party when they want to do our state good. ...

here's a look at some of the candidate ads running in louisiana. >> the choice for governor could not be not more clear. john bell edwards who answered our country's call and served as a ranger in the 82nd airborne division. or david bitter, who answered a prostitutes call minutes after he skipped about honoring 28 soldiers who gave their lives in defense of our freedom. david better chose prostitutes over patriots. now, the choice is yours.

>> 15 years ago i failed my family, but i found forgiveness and love. i learned that our faults are not what define us, rather how we get up, except responsibility and earn redemption. now we are facing budget crisis, low wages, i am a fighter. as your governor i will governor i will get up every day and fight for you, for a better, stronger louisiana. >> wednesday, ben carson speaks at liberty university at lynchburg, virginia. senators ted cruz and bernie sanders have also spoken to students at liberty. i live coverage begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern at c-span2. >> c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016. you'll find the candidates, the speeches, the debates, most

importantly your questions. this year, we are taking a road to the white house coverage in classrooms throughout the country with our student cam contests. giving students the opportunity to discuss important issues they want to hear the most from the candidate. follow the c-span student cam contest on tv, on the radio, and online on c-span.org. >> wednesday, a special veterans day edition of "washington journal". our guests include bill rauch of the art afghanistan veterans of america who talk about veteran and military issues. then a look at the mental health of america's veterans with harold of the veterans health administration and the kernel from washington d.c., ba medical center. plus your phone calls, tweets, facebook comments. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> two things are very different today. first of all we have a justice system. the trials were not held according to what we consider to be moderate law. they're hearsay is acceptable and innocent until proven guilty was not yet in place. no one had a defense lawyer. no note there were no lawyers at the time. the courtroom was an unruly place. that is one piece of it. we don't happen to believe and prosecute rich craft today. >> she talks about her book the witches, salem on the salem witch trials scope and effect of the trial had on the massachusetts community. >> interesting part of the accusation, given the way we think of salem, his wealthy merchants were sea captains, homeless 5-year-old girls were

accused of being witches. all the victims are female, including a minister, we hang witches. in addition there so much encrusted myth and misunderstanding here that i thought it was important to dispel. >> sunday night at eight eastern and specific on q&a. >> coming up on c-span2, the head of the federal election commission on money and ethics in political campaigns. after that, british secretary on energy and climate change. that is followed by former defense secretary on women and national security.

>> next ahead of the federal election commission and to political strategists, they talk about the roles of money and ethics in political campaigns. this hour and ten minute event was hosted by the commonwealth club of california. >> good evening and welcome to today's meeting of the commonwealth club of california. the place where you're in the know area by the commonwealth club on the internet at commonwealth club.org word down well download the android app for program and schedule information and podcasts of past programs. i am kirk hansen executive director, at santa clara university, a member of the silicone of the vice reboard of the club and your moderator for today's program. today, we are going to take an inside look at the way political campaigns really work. in turn, the american political

system. campaigns, of course still seem to be all about the money. donald trump's personal funds aside, most of that money needs to be raised from various interests. the new york times recently reported to date 158 families have contributed $176 million to the republican and democratic presidential campaigns. at least $250,000 per family. what monetary rules actually govern campaigns? how often are they broken? what role might campaign-finance laws play in the 2,016 campaign and beyond? in the big picture view, what is the thinking that governs the political campaigns and how does that impact the messages we receive and the candidates who

ultimately emerge on top? today, y

jerry brown, richard daley, and howard dean. >> in california mr. smith successfully directed los angeles mayor and tonio underdog campaign and was instrumental in the election of san francisco district attorney attorney general. in san francisco mayor gavin

newson as california lieutenant governor. he also ran san francisco and lease campaign. the new york times has called him legendary. sounds like the end of your career rather than the beginning of it. then ginsberg served as national council to the bush, cheney presidential campaign in 2,024 election cycle in 2,012 and 2,008, he served as national council to the romney for president campaign. he currently represents numerous political parties, individuals and corporations specializing in election law issues. mr. ginsberg also serves as

counsel to the republic governors association. he has been a guest lecturer at the stanford university loft law school, a fellow at harvard institute, and an adjunct professor of law at georgetown. before law school he spent five years as a journalist. please welcome our panelist [applause]. i will ask our panelist questions for the first 20 or 25 minutes and then integrate your questions and the discussion asking the questions you write on cards. let me start by giving the audience more of a sense of who you are and what you do. miss ravel, what powers does the federal election federal election commission actually have? what does it mean to oversee federal election?

>> i wasn't certain you are going to ask that question. i don't know if you have seen the house of cards. there is a part in it where the main character, frank underwood is about to run for president. there is concern by the members of the party about super pacs and the influence super pacs have. and he said in response, i am not the ec, i can't wave a magic wand. i just wanted to be known that the fec does not waive magic wands at all and i can't either. basically the fcc overseas campaign-finance issues. it does not oversee campaigns, generally or elections even

though that is in its title. what we are mainly concerned with his disclosure. it was established after watergate and the purpose of it was to restore trust in government because watergate was essentially a campaign-finance issue. there was a lot of a lot of sense of distrust in the public. it was necessary to have an agency that could both require exposer and enforce, previously to that there has not been any enforcement mechanism. >> what kind of issues come before the fec? what is the work of the commission? >> there is a variety. we can either give opinions of people who come before us to ask us about our regulations and the

applicable it to have them and the law to something they would like to do. for example we were asked to look at whether coin could be used in campaigns and how it fit in with election laws. we were also charged with the responsibility of issuing regulations relating to new laws and campaign-finance issues. for example, the only regulations we were able to agree on during my tenure were regulations to implement certain aspects of citizens united. of course, people can file complaints for violations. it can range anywhere, i can take about these now because

they are public -- although we decide them in confidence, there was an allegation even though despite the fact he was in jail about jesse jackson and his use of campaign funds for his personal use and for purchasing mink coats for his spouse. >> this is jesse jackson junior. >> yes. and we have a number of personal use kind of issues. there are complaints about illegal coordination because the supreme court has said it is improper to coordinate with independent groups and the candidates because that is a protection of the law so that

there can be independent, truly independent expenditures. >> let's get it on the table. you have been quoted frequently, lately that the commission does not have much hope of doing its work during the 2,016 election cycle because of the three, three split of democrats and republicans. republicans on the commission have been heard of save the role of the commission is not to enforce the laws that you applied to to protect free speech in elections. who is right? >> well of course, i think i am right. there is no question about that. there is a lot of case law that says that the role of a regulatory and administrative agency is not to determine constitutionality of the law. my view is, there are certain laws, there is a federal election campaign act that we are sworn to uphold.

so, that includes deciding that certain campaigns, certain committees are required to disclose who their donors are. so there is no dark money in our elections. those are things that i think you are required to do. my view of this is there is a statement that free speech needs to be upheld, we certainly agree the first amendment needs to be respected, and so far as the supreme court, the arbiter of those issues or other courts have so mandated inc. cases that are similar. >> we are going to get to bed. we did put you on the right and

from this perspective. but left for them. you are a democratic campaign manager. can you help us understand what a campaign manager's job is? what you see is your role? >> one of the biggest jobs is actually spending the money. before i start let me say one thing. dan is one of my heroes and the reason why is because he is a public official had the guts, in 2,012, this is so lacking to actually force the law in the rainy days of the 2,012 election and go all the way to the supreme court and take on the dark money. actually put it on the front page of the newspaper of california soap voters could fairly judge how money was influencing that election. you are a great example of that

[applause]. thank you. >> what to do you do as a campaign manager? >> was that a diversion? was that a debate trick? >> the trick to running a campaign and i actually think money is actually overestimated in the sense that there's there is not a direct correlation to spending money and winning campaigns. campaigns that when need to have a certain amount of money, what is tricky about california is that it is a big state that you have to have a huge amount of money to basically get known. it's a huge hurdle. i think a real question to ask in this context is, what are the real purposes of these regulations and the real effects on campaigns? i was curious before i came

here, i pulled out the valid book from 1974 when secretary of state jerry brown pass opposition nine. one of the in the country when you read through it, you read through the findings and declarations and all of the public ills that this is supposed to cure. everyone of them, too much money, too much influence, not enough reporting, not enough good people running for office. they are all true today,'s 40 some years later. the question is what has been the effect on these laws and are there other ways to actually do that? >> we're going to talk more about that, can you tell us, you have been at the center of much of presidential politics for the last 16 years.

can you tell us what a council to a campaign really does? what your role as their question marks. >> sure. thank you for having me it is great to be back amongst the republican base. [laughter] people who hire me, hire me because they want to run legal and ethical campaigns. that is what an election lawyer essentially does. i'll campaigns, especially presidential campaigns are like startup businesses in many ways. albeit a heavily regulated environment. there are election laws, laws involving how you get people out to vote, small business laws, employment laws, contract disputes. it is a broad, marvelously diverse practice.

it's really at the heart of getting people who you believe in elected to office. >> so is there a sense amongst candidates that you deal with that all of the requirements and reporting and such are burdensome or is there sense that these are a part of running for office and satisfying the public's need to know? >> i think they are baked into the cake. he raises a good point which is after this particular scheme of running elections since the 1970, what have you achieved? is it achieving its purpose? does it get in the way of campaigns being able to reach the people? you have terrible turnout statistics, maybe 50% of the population turns out to vote. it is not a system that is enhancing participation in any noticeable way. >> to what do you a attribute

that decline in people voting and if you like, the lack of trust in the process? >> i don't think it's a lack of trust in the process so much as a process that does not properly of involve people enough. one of the impacts of limiting what candidates can raise and spend, yet having a robust first amendment that the supreme court has enforced since 1976 in the first case to question the campaign finance laws. really, how do you run a campaign and getting to talk to enough people but also spreading out your base and getting people who are not intuitively involved in politics, or enjoy p intuitid in politics, or enjoy politics to know what is going on and to want to participate. in that sense, this is not a system you can point to and say it's helped.

>> let's come back to a fundamental question that we are so far avoiding, which is what is a good campaign westmark what is an ethical campaign? what is a campaign that fills the role should play? do you want to start with that and question work. >> yes and i would like to speak to what ben just said. what i see is campaigns that are micro- targeting, whether on cable tv or on facebook to actually only speak to people who they think are going to be likely voters for them. or people they think are going to likely clipped that money. so the campaigns themselves has limited the numbers of people that they are reaching out to. they have not tried to expand

the group of potentially disaffected voters. i personally believe the diiciffection of the boaters dos not relate to the campaign finance laws, although we might agree that some of the laws do not enhance any trust. there is certainly a lot in jerry brown's problem nine that makes no sense as far as i'm concerned in that regard. at the time the secretary of state -- nonetheless the idea of having disclosure, having people be informed about who is behind campaigns and the concern about the great deal of money that is being bent in super pacs when it is only a small slice of the population that is giving that money. the rest of the people, in the

2,014 election, there was 11% fewer individuals who contributed to campaigns. there was a whole lot more money spent. as the front page of the new york times said yesterday, it is a small group of extremely wealthy people who are now participating in campaigns. there does not seem to be an incentive, there does not seeje% to be a view, and i think it is an ethical question in some ways that if you are looking at the longvia w and going to be a legislator or even an executive, wouldn't you want to include the majority of the american people and what their interests are. this is a representative democracy, wouldn't you want to speak to them? >> so good campaign from your perspective and part is one that attracts a wide range of funders

as well as people paying attention to the message. >> yes, i think funders once they give, even if it is a small amount they become more connected to the issues and to the candidates. >> would you all agree, and how do you achieve if you like more participation via contributions then we have today with the focus on whether it is 150 or 20on vfamilies? >> i think the question is more fundamental than money. i think it is having interesting electives with interesting candidates talking about interesting things. the best piece i have read on the presidential race was written by the television critic of the new york times on iciturday where as much as

in san francisco, he actually understand the audience and how to connect with folks in the s torld we live in. admittedly a chunk of the pie. the critic compared the other campaigns running the equivalent of ed sullivan od ows. i think there is a lot of evils and ills in politics, i think a lot of thest.go back to other things than money. for example the belief that you're going to figure out what people are going to hear and just iciy it. instead of actually taking stance and being controversial. i think it is more fundamental than money. >> do you think candidates show that tend to see more frequency noin ca finding out what people want to hear. >> no question about it. i think it will go in the way of the din staur eventually but it always takes system. a while to correct change and we are

probably at the front end of thas wh >> do agree with that been? that candidates are speaking to their polling rather than spea itng to their beliefs? >> i actually think it is hard to generalize that. if anything, the trump, carson, icinders for the demong thiat sonnction there are people who are not listening to their polls and at least, for now are having the m stt success. i think a good campaign is a campaign that the candidates knows what he or she stands for, articulates that mesicige, loths lor people who will sut those principal beliefs. i think iew anything, campaigns do not rely on ming thio- targe. a good campaign will do is talk about the broad issues and broad philosophies of the client and

use ming thiil targeting as a tl underneath that. the most successful ming thiil targeting is, and that is drytling down into people's characteristics, the most successful characteristivan it edampaigns that find vot agree with the candidate but have not participated. expanding the electorate is the most prior ed giewt that a campn manager can ever give a candidate. that is by philosophy and sicige that evilcites people who don't normally get excited. >> we have to face the money question head-on and what it has done lately. >> let's take super fat packs first. if super pacs are so much a part of the rsiuation today even with reporting how ten ch money candidates have raised, the press is tallying what the press

send super and super pacs are racing. that of course is a more often from large givers. is that getting in the way of broader participation? >> i think what you described of what the system is today is a fstem that is dyssonnctional and upside downd t the core of today's finance system is to limit what candidates and political parties can raise. the truth of the matter is super pacs according to the supreme court and i think it is a first amendment lasuphave a right to say they want to say. when you limit the amount of money candidates can raise in effect, urine enhancing the value of what a super pack brings. if you really want candidates to can troll the mesicige of your campaign seems to be the

institutional design we would all want, the campaigns controlled the control the message in the debate and not super pack then you don't limit candidates and that makes super pavan less essential to the process. they have less space in which to operate. >> does that imply that your polil. prescription is to take the caps off the individual campaigns as well as the super pack? >> you canir put lle toits on r pacs, we have already established that on the supreme cours wh what i would do is increase tremendously what candidates could raise themselves. what political parties could raise and spend so that it is candidates who control the message and the way a campaign is taking place now. i would not limit super pacs, i think that is acceptable first amendment document. >> comments from you and their effect on the system?

certainly there have been complaints filed regarding coordination that the federal edommission has not beeo undertake examination of. is that an issue we should be focusing on? >> ultle toately nos wh i have to disagree to some extent because i do think the main concern is that because people are relying of super pacs and weafedng the individuals tod their campaigns, not even relating to polling or anything else were having a mesicige, a lot of them appear to be getting their messages from super pavan. people who are the big donors to the super pacs there has been a number of newspaper r. worts

where they want to take a more active role of the policy and campaign. we certainly knosupthat many of them are like shadow campaigns. i do not think taking it off for the candidates is going to help the problem. i totally agree, it is a problem that is of the supreme court ma itng and it is a fact of lif. taking off the cap is just going to mean the icime thing is true for the candidates and the parties. everyone wytl be holding to the group of people who have a lot of money ssueh as the one whose houses are displayed on the front page of the new york times yesterd% par. i don't have a problem with but it needs to be more rsiual n a sense that candidates have the

incentive to try to reach out to more people. >> is there any way out of this spoken regarding super pacs and out the money flowing so freely? >> i think it is something that is running campaigns you have to deal with and live with. it is the vast amount of money that gets wasted by super pacs and it gets used pth rlrm there does need to be a return to the equilibrium. i also think the other thing that is troubling about the move toward super pacs is they get used as vehicles for other things. ultimately, part of the prlimle% vs to some degree or another --

i don't think everything should be listed i think it is too be listed i think it is too restricted righat candome dburee we have said we t will make beer and wine legal but we are surprised when someone makes a hard liquor. that is itnd of the situation e are in. >> just as john paul stevens in his sixth amendment bth k last rtiear one of his proposed ytheh amendment would reverse the super pack decision, citizens united. what about dark mone cam welfare olranizations that have spent money on campaigns and do not have to r. wort their donors? is that a problem in terms of the credibility of elections and

the ethics of electionw from each of your standpd i nt. supp>> i think it is a huge prom and a shame. one of the odd things about california is that in calieworna s te have all three species of campaign systems. we have the federal system whic% s te know whiert is restrictingf contrisuehtions and you have soe ultra-orthodox municipal elections where there are edeilings on the amounty you can spend. there are matching funds, then you have another systeiqwhich is literally the wild wesug yo alcan raise any amount of money you want for anything, all you have to do is r. wort it. i think as long as there's truthful reporting and people can figure out where the money vs coming froiqand hosupten erts being spent i think voters are very smart. in california everyone knows we

have a histoh i as a state going ck decades of not electing self funders because voters are aware of money and politivan and will base their deciythons upon that. >> the whole issue of welfare organizations spending monecal i don't nt.ow whether you havis a3 clients in the space but to what extent froiqyour ae nlyyths of elections and the fairness of elections, is that a problem or not? >> if yo alare talking about than the social welfare than the social welfare the righat function in terms of getting ou% re information then theris a 3v% s tould be without them. again, i think it goes back to

the fstem of limiting candidates. >> if you limit candidates to have specific funisp to air ther messages then there becomes less of a need for social welfare organizations to do it they are doing so this systeiqthat we ounave had in place since the early 1970s has created a problem of both dark monecal so i

santa clara university in the program moderator. yo alwill also find on this a 3% youtube channel we are going to go in a moment to questions, lots of tod questions that you have submitted. there are at least two other areas where people debate not mayst the money issues, they are

the issues of redistricting and ation as the case m% par go another and the politics of voter access. er of houhave su a pole is open or, here in california you are e mtomatically registered te moment you apply for a driver's license. when governor ubmown ythgn that provision are those imporio nt n your estimation

obviously we know there are states that are trying to prohibit people and that is seriously problematic. i think in california for the most part the issue that is more important is trying to get the issue out to the people who are not voting in a seriously low numbers and particularly in california. and somehow we need to we need to talk of to the public about

things that are important and figure out individuals to get them to understand how important it is to participate in our political system. >> and asher have the answers to how to change it but it is fascinating what is happened is it will be very high during the presidential primary and then you have these increasingly deep dips in turnout in between. my own personal theory which i attribute to is that the consumption has changed fundamentally in what used to be based upon reading newspapers and were largely locally -based news were made up of the bottom of the new spearman for sure 20

years ago in the top of the peer amid was national news. we have moved to a news society and it is quite flipped. the local issues are seen as minuscule at the top of the pma. i do not know how we change it, my personal belief is we need to consolidate elections more. we need to move the municipal and statewide elections where we know there will be high turnout and go with what we know, a pattern that is historic and we know will be there. i think that is the best solution. >> these two areas, either voter access for the others?

>> on redistricting i was council of the republican national committee in the 90s. we bought a family dog around that time and named her jerry manders. redistricting has been described as a source of polarization in the country. on the polarization it is hard to make the argument that the senate of the united states is a less polarized place than the u.s. house. there is no redistricting in the senate there is in the house. president obama when he won election he won 36 of the 39 largest metropolitan areas and the rest of the country mitt romney one. that is a polarized country in which redistricting has nothing to do with. i think the evil of gerrymandering and redistricting is somewhat overblown.

on a ballot access ballot access i had the honor of cochairing the election administration with bob bauer who is a lawyer in washington and represented obama's campaign. we looked carefully at the issues of access to polling places, every legally qualified voters should not have any obstacle in his or her way when they go to vote. that is pretty plain and simple. so the details of that and the problems that occur tend to be locally oriented. they had great solutions of allowing people every opportunity to vote. i think that if you look at the country in a different mechanisms that states have, election administrators at the local, and state-level do everything they can to allow people to vote without barriers.

the problem really goes back to the question we discussed earlier, why are so many individuals disaffected and not turning out to vote. i do not think it is barriers that get could put in their way. >> let me go to the questions now. there is some pushback around the question of independent activity in the super pack. i'm just asking if it is even possible to have the kind of money we have in super pacs and not have it coordinated in some way implicitly if not explicitly with the campaigns? >> it is an interesting question the way it is phrase. if you so shut down the free press and commentators and public tv were not required to be public, there would were not be any implicit coordination between outside groups and campaigns.

so much today in the environment where we are where there's so much public information and so much is written, that if a campaign puts on its website, we think it is important to talk about taxes this week, a super pack is going to read it. is that illegal coordination? do you want to shut down the federal communication requirement that all television buys it be available online for everybody to read where campaign is advertising or where a super pack is advertising? that is something that got put in as additional, necessary disclosure. so a super pack can read what a campaign is doing and vice versa and we celebrate that in the name of disclosure of repressed. >> however, i actually agree

with a small portion of what is going on in the super pacs that been talked about. what we are now suing in the 2016 election cycle are super pacs called buddy packs. they are pacs associated were only contributing to a particular candidate. in some cases they are using videos, appearing at campaign luncheons, and doing almost the entire job of the campaign. they are making other communications with reporters relating to the campaign, they are doing a lot of things that go beyond what ben was talking about. i am not saying that is necessarily coordination under the law but you have to remember, the reason there are

laws related to coronation of candidates is that the supreme court said there is no danger of quid pro quo corruption with the super pack interacting with the candidate if they are truly independent. if there is any coordination between them then certainly there is an appearance that there might be. >> if the federal has not updated the coronation rags over 20 years, so you can't take the position that someone is violating the law when the lot does not cover the position, even if you believe the law should cover it doesn't now. secondly, i know this was a

considered decision for you but if you are going to say the federal election commission is dysfunctional than the effect of that is to tell super pacs all across the spectrum that nothing is going to happen if you push the envelope on laws that are 20 years old. this is kind of the situation of your own creation and a lot of way. >> can i respond to that. >> certainly, you should. >> you are a washington d.c. lawyer, every washington d.c. lawyer that i have ever spoken to about this issue knew full well, many years prior to my being on the ftc that it is dysfunctional, that generally on matters of significance it deadlocks. people have told me that

clients, candidates, have been advised at times by election lawyers, there is no risk in pushing the envelope because the fec will ftc will always deadlock three, three. that did not come from me, although i set it on the front page of the new york times, but it has certainly been known for a long time. it is not known. >> but yet someone got sent to jail for illegal coordination this year. >> while the department of justice. >> from the department of justice, but nonetheless there is a lot out there that covers some situations just not the ones you describe. >> a couple of people have rays, the counter case to what we have talked about which is obama's success in raising so much money

in his reelection campaign and attracting so many small donors. is that a counter example that disproves the concern that you have expressed or the new york times has expressed about the large donors. >> know, that is a phenomena that happens with only presidential campaigns and extraordinary campaigns. you could probably put howard dean, obama, sanders now, that never happens in any type of campaign anywhere in america. maybe some isolated examples of hot issues, a once in a decade thing. >> so that raises the question, we have been talking about presidential politics but as we point out that is just one of many types of races that we will be voting on next year and that

we vote on each year. is the federal election commission concerned as much of with the senate races and house races and should we be more worried about the potential dominance by a small number of donors? >> we do have oversight over all federal offices so that includes congress. i do not think there is a concern about small donors, at all. in fact from my own perspective i am not a campaign consultant so it is interesting to hear the views of how difficult it is even in those campaigns to be able to entice small donors. i know a lot of cities and states have done some matching funding that rick connecticut

used to do it arizona used to do it, they said that is the reason she won one for governor in arizona. because they had a system to encourage and to help do some matching funding and allow for small donors, so that is a positive. the federal election commission oversees the presidential public financing which is only used by third-party candidates. since obama. >> i think there is good news and badness bad news with small donors. the good news is the new technology, internet, and being able to talk to people online, to talk to people online is a less expensive way to raise small dollars.

there are more campaigns even on the congressional and senate level where candidates have struck a positive chord and got a ton of small donations in. bad news is the messaging required to get those small donations tends to be polarized. so you're going to get more people involved with small dollar donations but the rhetoric needed to bring in those small dollar donors has tended to be more heated. >> it is also hugely expensive. once you get past the presidential level to create a broad. so i think the list are getting better and better. i think it is still cheaper than sending mail isn't it? >> it is. >> we have questions about the effective technology. >> that is what i wanted to raise actually because i think technology may be a solution to

that money and politics issue entirely because there is a number of tech companies now that our democracy technology companies. they are trying new mechanisms of bringing in support to candidates whether presidential or local that doesn't involve contributions. it actually involves commitments to candidates and hopefully getting to sufficient commitments so it upends the campaign-finance requirements at all. that is possibly the future. >> are you optimistic about that future questionnaire. >> yes question marks. >> yes i am optimistic about it. i think it is good and i think you are right that small donors now tend to be more polarized

because of the ways mechanisms are being used. i still go back to believing that a lot of attempt to our is not made to go after the disaffected. the ones who have not made up their minds and perhaps the one who needs to be encouraged to vote. >> it is often said we are guilty in silicon valley in the bay area a feeling that we will be saved by technology on absolutely everything. we can now add politics to that list. in the interim while we are waiting to be saved by technology, there are several questions about what structural reforms ought to be undertaken in the short run. do you have particular reforms for the fec that you believe should be considered and that you would support? >> i personally believe the

problem at the fec and a lot of people have said well it is because there are six members, not more than three may be of one political party and it requires for boats to do anything. as a result it often deadlocks. >> ..

>> or do you have your own favorite reforms? >> i do not have a form, but i would say that if you change the structure of certain aspects of the election, you profoundly impact all those aspects and so if you move all of the the municipal elections to presidential election nears, you would have a larger audience than you do not have to get up to vote because they would have to get out the vote anyway. so that saves you from spending huge amounts of resources to get people out to vote and that is

historically the way that it is going. the other thing that i found intriguing and i know that this is a little bit utopian, but having done this in oakland, i would become a big fan and i will tell you why. in that mayor's race everyone had a limit of $400,000 that was a common everyone had the same mistakes. but the more profound impact is that you are actually disadvantage tremendously if you try to do targeting because you actually have to broadly reach as many people as possible with a broad message because you actually have to get second and third place votes so we can sense kind of this broader honest campaign and it also defends negative campaigning because if you go negative on someone else come in you'll

actually hurt your own standing tremendously so you can't afford to do that anyway, so you won't get second or third place votes, so i actually think that there is kind of extra campaign-finance reforms that could have a huge impact on the campaign warm finance. >> the structure of them themselves? >> yes, it would actually change the way they are done and use it. >> changes structurally? >> i come at this from a fundamentally different direction, which is this is the core protected first amendment speech that we are talking about, political speech to be protected by the first amendment, and i think that a lot of problems that we are talking about have been attempts to overregulate that first amendment speech so that many of

the rules and regulations lead to the sort of odd results and so i would kind of go back and have a good time going through the book, making this much more about candidates being able to control the messaging that they do, strengthening the political parties to enable them to support their candidates, reduce the necessity of outside voices in the campaigns because the campaigns are well enough funded and not try to overregulate where we should be able to deal with the marketplace of ideas and competing ideas. >> there is such a difference in perspective between the republicans and democrats on the sec and some say it's impossible to have a bipartisan solution to the structure of the campaign

and could we have this initiative in the future or are we inevitably going to be dead in the water because of the polarization. we are interested in each of your perspectives as to whether any kind of movement is going to be possible given the degree of polarization. >> i think that the answer to that is yes. i think that there are practitioners across the aisle who agree that what they did in terms of restricting the ability of the political parties to help their candidates had a negative effect overall. most of it has been struck down by the courts which is really the exception of the restrictions on the political political parties and federalizing what they can do. and i do think that you can now get some agreement across the aisle to drink than the role of

the parties which in turn strengthen the ability of candidates to get out their message and so i do think that there can be movement in that area. >> i'm an optimist on this question, i don't think that that will happen, i'm an optimist because all great things happen in california first. [laughter] >> the truth is that if you look at where they have moved, the balance of power is with independent voters and they tend to be younger, less polarized and very much more open-minded and i think that that is the generation coming of age in this country. it just happened to happen here first and it's coming of age that does not feel the necessity of essentially placing themselves on the tapestry through political parties and so i think that that will ultimately be what transforms

the place that we live in today. >> i agree with him on the fact that all innovation occurs in california and that there is a lot of hope to work across party lines in california, definitely. and it is also true that nationwide more voters are independent and identify as independents and that certainly is going to change the dynamic as we go forward. and so i think that with respect with the federal election commission in regard to the rules, personally i agree that parties should be strengthened. i don't have a problem looking at the rules related to mccain and feingold. but the question more for me is

is there a willingness on the part of the republicans to look at the importance of regulation in this arena because at no question there is free speech implications and also the american public deserves integrity and their elections and they deserve that there is not just a free-for-all of spending and there needs to be robust disclosure. and i think that that is the crux of the problem. at least in my conversations in washington, it is true here in california that republicans and democrats have voted in the legislature in california to

increase disclosure. but that would not be the case in washington. >> okay, so we are going to be saved by technology and by california. [laughter] there are two of the questions and i want to use this at the end, their are two of three questions about general ethics and campaigns and i want to put this forward. so you are in the last days of the campaign and this comes out from your opponent that says things that are false about you. your temptation is to do something more than say that it's false. but can the typical campaign resents the temptation to use the most damaging thing that you have about the opponents in those last days?

>> i think that the truth is that there is something truly damaging it will come out in the press. >> you would've used it much earlier. [laughter] >> i wouldn't have used it, i would like to reiterate what i said. and we can watch too many games of thrones and house of cards and a not actually the way that it works. >> are there more false statements made in campaigns today than when you began your career is a campaign manager? >> there are far fewer and the reason is that by official organizations of the campaigns, i actually think in the world that we live in that there is more instant accountability for that stuff. and there's always example is that you can point to that prove

that. but i think that by and large i could go into a bunch of examples. some of the nasty stuff that i have seen is the stuff that i've looked up around it. we nastier than anything today. >> thomas jefferson and john adams seemed to have it as well. >> they did a pretty good job as well. as a final question we are at the end of our time. ten years from now we have restored some of the bipartisanship as well as the trust and so can you describe what might have happened or how this youth plus intranet scenario might have developed and will lead us to the promised land or what will lead us to greater confidence in our election? >> i believe that incumbents today are going to get fed up

with the current system and their inability to control their own message, incumbents will decide when to forge a more sensible system. >> cooperation by the incumbents? >> yes, i think there are two things that are happening there and one is really the increasing inability to kind of get over this nonsensical say nothing, voters are looking for something different and i referred to this earlier and i think it will change the balance. >> i think if you look at the polling there was a cbs a "new york times" poll about a month

ago. and they said 80% of the american public are upset about the money and politics and it appears that only the wealthiest are making the policy decisions with candidates and those kinds of -- these are republicans and democrats. it is across the board and so i think that that sends will militate for change. >> i want to thank our panelists for their participation in this discussion. >> the panelists have been part of the chair of the federal election commission and veteran campaign strategies.

we also want to thank the audience is here at the commonwealth club on radio and television and the internet. i am professor kurt hanson of santa clara university applied ethics college and this meeting of the commonwealth club of california where the place you are in the know is adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> philip hammond is in washington this week and will have his remarks on climate change, then undersecretary of defense on women and national security, followed by another chance to see louisiana governors debate between david vitter and john edwards. >> this veterans day on c-span,

congressional freshman profiles of members who are veterans, we will talk to a harvard graduate did it for tours in iraq and republican steve russell of oklahoma. he was involved in the hunt for saddam hussein. that is tomorrow on c-span. wednesday, special veterans day edition of "washington journal." guests include bill rauch of the afghanistan veterans of america who talk about veterans and military issues and then i look at them mental health of america's veterans with the veterans health administration and karen ritchie of the washington dc va medical center. plus your phone calls, tweets and facebook comments, it begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span has the best access to

congress. watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. watch us online or on your phone at c-span.org. listen live anytime our radio application. get best access by following c-span and our capitol hill reporter on twitter. stay with us for your best access to congress. >> had of the veterans day holiday, senator dick or been paid tribute to veterans on the senate floor. here is a look. >> whenever freedom is threatened, the brave men and women of america have answered the call. we will take a moment to recognize an amazing illinois veteran a part of what we call the greatest generation. since december 7, 1941, as fdr

said is a few steps away from the house chamber, a day that will live in infamy. the imperial japanese forces launched a surprise attack on pearl harbor. it also happened to be the 22nd birthday of tony, the day he decided that he would enlist in the united states navy. he was assigned as a merchant marine vessel in november 1942 a german ship was also disguised as a merchant vessel and sank the ship of his army. he survived but was taken as a prisoner of war the german ship. and he was turned over to the japanese where he spent the next three years as a prisoner working in a coal mine. everyday he every day he would come out of the mine covered head to toe with cold us.

in those three years he could never even wash his hands. and he worked more than 10 hours a day on less than 8 ounces of water. here is how he described this experience. they torture you, beat the hell out of you, and they tried to be too back to the ground and you pray to god that they would kill you. by the time the war was over and the red cross arrived, he couldn't believe that he was still alive. when arriving in the united states they quarantine him for weeks and they couldn't even tell him that he was alive, but he made it and he came home. fast forward seven years, he is 95 years old and he marvels at his good fortune. he married julia elliott, the love of his life and it works it stays weak. he was maître d' in skokie,

illinois had a famous restaurant. enjoy the arrival of five grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. last month he came to washington and he visited the white house in the world war ii memorial and he shared the story with the veterans history project at the library of congress and they asked him what you think of when you look back in her life and here's what he said come everything turned out pretty good. i met a nice young lady and we got married and spent a beautiful years together. i have no complaints. isn't that an amazing statement for a man that served three years as a prisoner of war and was nearly killed in the effort? the joys of his life have outshined the horrors of war. he said there were others who had it much worse. but we should honor the ones where the white crosses are.

and he faced an unspeakable evil and lived his life the true america and hero. not this wednesday we should honor him everyday. too often service members return home only to find themselves may facing a myriad of challenges. including those struggling to find work. we cannot simply commemorate their service and forget them. we have to ensure that veterans have access to the best health care, education, jobs and housing. i have one program that i am proud to be a part of called the va caregivers program.

it provides him the support that they need. thousands of caregivers, it is a big and successful program and i recently introduced legislation to expand it and we know that veterans face unnecessary claims and delays and we have worked hard to cut down on that. i have also tried to make the va hospitals in illinois and across the country the best. it is the new method of medical service being provided to veterans and that has to be the best. i'm proud to sponsor bills to strengthen poster mattock stress order for veterans and families as well as improve or that ex-and education for example, more than $674 was awarded in grants to

assist homeless veterans to a tenant-based voucher program. let me say a word about a program that i visited just this last week in chicago, which is an extraordinary program. this is a program called rags of honor. it was created by my friend who wanted to do something to create jobs, good paying jobs for homeless veterans. so he decided to make t-shirts, and he hired homeless veterans to do it. well, it's on its third year now and my friend is basically underwriting it but the fact is that it is a success. these men and women who are living on the street now have good paying jobs making t-shirts made by homeless veterans, all-american product and all american made and they are selling them and they have

people that are buying them. northwestern university decided that they would turn to them and have them facilitate their needs at the university. i use them in my campaign, rags of honor t-shirts, it's an example of what can be done to help veterans just by one man who is willing to dedicate a big part of his life to do it. under so many more like it. i would like to thank all those and even families of those who have given their lives for this nation and for the ones that they have suffered and the sacrifices they have made the freedoms we enjoy, we remember and honor the service of every american veteran not only at the 11th hour of every day of every month but every day of the year, because even though they may shy away from being labeled as heroes, they are truly the most deserving. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> wednesday, president obama commemorates veterans day at