democrat jack conway faces republican rand paul. live coverage begins sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. coming up on "washington journal," a conversation on housing foreclosures and capitol hill's relationship with wall street. this afternoon, the national commission on the b.p. deep water horizon oil spill will meet. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern. . .

>> in a free-form discussion. which the candidates can

elaborate on their positions, question each other, and respond to each other statements pretty if we get for all six questions and is time remaining, i will ask a seventh and final question. the debate will conclude with 62nd closing statements for each candidate. we expect everyone in the audience to treat this debate with respect and dignity. outbursts' will not be tolerated and will lead to dejection from the theater. please turn off yourself on and the theater doors have been closed for the event for it if you need to leave, you will not be let back again and will be directed instead to an overflow room. a round of applause pleas for are two candidates, russ feingold, and ron and john centurion [laughter] [applause] johnson] i will ask you to do something

different and refrained from applause until the end of the debate. center russ feingold has the first opening statement. you have 90 seconds. >> thank you. thanks to the whole greater loss of community. wausau community. i have instilled in the idea of political independence. this has had a big impact on the way i've done this jumper in some people's i i and the most independent member of the senate. that is the reason i voted against the tarp deal and the wall street bailout and the unfair trade agreements that sent tens of thousands of wisconsin jobs overseas. that is the reason that i voted against the no child left behind the which forces teachers to teach to the tests and takes local control away from education. you all know what the priorities

are. it is jobs and cutting federal spending. i have offers this of the plants on jobs and federal spending. the jobs tax credit and a 41 point plan to cut half a trillion dollars out of the federal budget. my opponent has chosen in six months of campaigning to do nothing of the kind. he has not offered a jobs plan, and he has not offered is this a good plan to cut federal spending. i'm still hoping we can have a discussion about it tonight. thank you so much. >> ron, johnson you have 60 seconds. >> six months ago i was a full term businessman running a manufacturing plant. ambition.t my life's our country is headed in the wrong direction. people are out of work. families are struggling and they are worried. the response from washington has been incredibly ineffective and extremely expensive. our nation's debt stands at $14.40 trillion. it is threatening the future

prosperity of america. wisconsin voters can vote for a career politician whose votes in washington have explode the deficit an expanded federal government or they can vote for a citizen legislator, someone who has private-sector experience creating jobs and balancing a budget. someone who has had a full career and raise a family and willing to apply in common sense for nation's problems. that's why i would like to talk about this tonight. >> our first question is about the health care plan. there are many provisions in the bill better broadly agreed to be improvement to the current system like closing the dawn of part b andedicare car

other things. why did you vote for a built the most in wisconsin opposed? for mr. johnson, you campaigned on repealing hull law but wouldn't that also mean doing away with a positive provisions that are included in it as well as the things that would be harmful? >> we will go with senator fine gold for 90 seconds. >> i have done town meetings and everyone of our 72 counties like to the bill. i said i would try to have national health care legislation. the evidence we have is that 60 percent of wisconsin heights have favored something and 40% probably didn't want it. indeed of all the tough town meetings, it was about 50/50 right here. we came up with a plan that

makes sense. it is not the takeover of the health-care system by the federal government which mr. johnson likes to say it is pretty it did not do that for it as a compromise in the wisconsin tradition. for 100 years, we have had a strong private insurance system here but with strong regulation of insurance. your question anticipates the really big deal which is we finally have the insurance companies out of complete control of our lives and we have controls on pre-existing condition denials and every young person under 26 can stay on their parents' plan until they are 26 which is a great thing. the bill is a great compromise and the number one issue that has been brought up over the years, i felt obligated to get something done and i'm proud that we did. >> mr. johnson, 90 seconds. >> the health care bill was incredibly expensive and complicated. we did not need a 2600-page bill

passed in the middle of the night to address the problems. if you think about the primary problems, cost and taxes. if you think about what the administration and senator fine gold thought this would do, they said it would save every family $2,500 for one year on their health insurance. the congressional budget office estimated the cost to each family $2,100. families are starting to get those premium increases. there was no cost control whatsoever. in terms of accessibility, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. they're on agencies, health and human services and irs issued a report at 51% of current plants will not be grandfathered and it will be put in the government exchange. that will the government controlled and regulated health care.

it was a shame because i think we had a consensus to address the problems in our health care industry and we could've done a with individual bills to address those problems. i would start with torte reform. that could have saved $300 billion in junk lawsuits and defense of medicines. >> you have a follow-up? >> i would like to follow-up with mr. johnson. you have said you favor repealing the law. does not not risk doing away with pre-existing conditions or medicare part b? senator feingold, you are good for the public auction and other ways the bill could add gone further. do you think there is more to be done on health care reform? >> do i start? >> you have 3 minutes.

>> the individual problems facing health care could have been addressed with individual bills. we did not have to take $500 billion away from medicare part we did not have to increase taxes. we did not have to put on 16,000 additional irs agents. what does that have to do with health care? we did not have to put in the 1099 provision that requires every small business person to put in a government form to their suppliers and the irs every time they purchase more than $600 worth of supplies bric. senator feingold voted against that appeal. this is designed to go to a single payer government-run health care. barney frank said that this is the first step along the path to a single that is exactly what senator feingold once.

>> i want what i voted for. i want this bill because i think it is the right solution. yes, i would prefer the public option which would have netted struggle. mr. johnson says we should not just pass individual bills. we tried to pass all these things individually and the insurance companies killed every single one of them. we tried to have a patient's bill of rights for years. we had a bipartisan effort and insurance companies killed it. they have killed the ability to make sure that 1 million will ben heightitesd protected. they have been able to let insurance companies prevent people from having lifetime coverage because of lifetime limits on their covers. that was eliminated in this bill. we finally got that down a hole filled. we have seniors between $2,000.6000 dollars of expenditures are getting no

coverage for their prescription drugs. we couldn't do it. the idea of doing a bill by bill won't happen. it happen because we got together and a package that finally put this in control and took the insurance companies out of control. i don't want to see that repealed. >> mr. johnson, do you have anything to add? >> it will put the government in control. they will get between the doctor and patient. it is designed for government takeover averted when these plans go into the government exchanges, the government will totally regulate which insurance companies can participate. that is exactly what you wanted. i am confused in terms of what you want because six years ago you said you want a 50-state solution. a few years later, you said you are for a single payer plan. >> this is a 50-state solution. these are separate state private insurance plans. this is not one national plan.

that is exactly what we ended up doing. we have not done that in place yet. how could you possibly know what it will look like. we will make sure the insurance companies will not run our lives. >> we have the second question then let's turn to the economy. senator feingold, some of the economic policies have done little to turn the economy around for a how to respond that these policies are creating jobs and helping families. mr. johnson, you say the government has no experience creating jobs in the private sector. why do you think your experience in business better qualifies you to craft a job creating an economic policies than some with a background in policy creation? the country is not a private business. what's this of a kind of policies will you support to

help create jobs? >> we go first to mr. johnson. >> you have to understand where jobs are created. long term self sustaining jobs are in the private sector and i have done that for 31 years. i have been producing products and creating real jobs. i understand that. when they passed the stimulus bill, that does not create jobs. senator feingold cast the deciding vote on the stimulus package he said it would create 2.4 million jobs in the first year and 9 million jobs after three years. obviously, that has not come true. we are 1.5 years into this. we are down 2.6 million jobs. this requires the knowledge and experience of realizing how to create a job. what are the incentives? what effect does the rules and

regulations and taxes that the government imposes on the private sector impact business creation, job creation? i understand what that is. it is a different perspective. it is sorely lacking in washington. we have 57 lawyers in the senate. we have zero manufacturers and one accountant. our country is facing fiscal -- serious fiscal issues and the little business perspective is long overdue in washington. that is what i am offering wisconsin voters. weake can get away from attacking other people's jobs. your arguments about this work carefully evaluated in the newspaper yesterday. they said you're completely wrong about york when that the recovery bill did nothing. you have never addressed the fact that 90% of all working

families in this country's got a tax cut under that bel pre is that something we should sneeze at and reject? we have seven times more road construction under this bill in last year. we have 80,000 more whether recession of homes across this country. wheree been to the sidetes this is happening. your local heating and cooling people are doing this work. it is your local construction people doing this work. the recovery bill was an emergency and only a single step. it was not meant to create permanent jobs. it did in fact create between 1.5 million and a 3 million jobs and that is something i would think you'd want us to have r. there are jobs created by

giving a tax exempt calls for companies to rehire. >> you have a follow-up? >> as seriously do you take the climate change particularly as it relates to the economy? will you push the for the creation of green energy jobs and policies that embrace alternative energy? >> i am happy to go first. i simply don't believe that global warming is proven science . as a result, the last thing we can afford to do is penalize our economy and tax energy up to $1 trillion. that could be devastating for the state of wisconsin. this is a bill that senator feingold voted for that would increase the average cost of household energy per family, $1,600. it could have cost wisconsin 40,000-60,000 jobs. i would not support any kind of cap and trade legislation. >> i do not substitute my

judgment -- i would not substitute my judgment on manufacturing for you. i would not substitute my judgment for the vast majority of scientists in the world that's a climate change is real and man has something to do with it. i respect those scientists and i think they are right. i think we better do something about it. mr. johnson has says this of a clear it would be a fool's errand to do anything about it. that is just ignoring our responsibility to our children and grandchildren and to have a planet that people can lumber it is not true that i voted for a cap and the trade bill. when the house passed a bill, i said i don't want to hurt the wisconsin economy. we have a more coal;-based economy than other states. i let people know that i was not going to support it and let the administration now paradigm one reason why the bill did not get through because i am very

concerned that businesses in wisconsin to not get hurt by what we need to do to try to solve this problem. sticking our head in the sand and thinking this is caused by sunspots does not cause the problem -- does not solve the problem. >> do you have a response to that? >> senator feingold who voted for cloture on the lieberman bill. it would of had the same impact on the house bill. he voted to move it forward them up moving a bill for to discuss it as part of the process. >> do you want me to vote against debating bills? there was a regulation bill that you agreed with. i voted to have us take it up. the amendments were lousy and i became the only democrat not to vote with the republicans but i voted against it because it did not do the job.

the notion that because i voted to debate a bill tha, i am the strongest advocates to make sure this bill does not rest of wisconsin. >> as devastating as that would of been for the economy of wisconsin, you should not have all voted for cloture. you should not have allowed it to move forward. >> let's move on. >> let's turn to social security according to the congressional budget office, social security will be able to pay full benefits until the year 200039. -- until 2039. there's a resolution going to the house and senate that calls for no cuts to the program. are changes needed and if so what would they be and how would you ensure that those who pay into the system now will see something when they retire? >> we will start with mr. johnson. excuse may, it is senate

feingold first. [laughter] >> we know how to do this for it was done the past. you have to take it out of the hands of the congress and create a commission which was done in the early 1980's as a bipartisan commission that creates a package to improve the solvency of the program and send it back to congress and not allow any amendments. that is what they did is that is how we get into the practice of late -- of raising up the fica level in your paycheck. it was down around 60,000 and they created a graduation that has helped keep the fund solvent. it is not high enough for it only goes to $106,000 brack. people proposed raising vat and i would like to do it. we should not change the program

fundamentally. i am against any form of privatization of social security. social security is fundamental for many people's lives. mr. johnson has said that people not yet and social security, everything is on the table and that obviously include some forms of privatization. i will fight that every inch of the way. >> i recognize that promises have been made to seniors. there are people group currently are retired or about to retire and our country must honor those promises and i will be dedicated to honoring those promises. the fiscal problems of social security that we face in the future have been known for decades and have been no during the 18 years that senator feingold has been there and he has done nothing to fix that.

he has never done anything to fix social security. he has incurred more debt to make that much more difficult for us to fix the problem. during his tenure, $2.20 trillion have been paid into social security and the american people thought that was being set aside. it has been spent. it was spent on other government programs for the money is gone. i would like to take my accounting and business background and a dedication to actually go into washington and address this problem and make social security system in the long term. i will look at all the options. a think you have to have an open mind. the only two options i would take off the table is i would not agree to a job-killing payroll tax increase and i would never force privatization on anybody. hi would not force privatization on anybody. >> you have a follow-up?

>> when the talks about social security, the next thing to come as medicare and medicaid. there are similar concerns about funding there as well. what is the government's role in providing health care to the growing number of elderly as well as the needy and does the current system needed change? >> with regard to social security, the notion that the fund is insolvent is absolutely false. it goes until 2039. it is a scare tactic to try to pretend that everything else is true. it is solvent and the medicare program is in more need of having reform in the near term breed that is what the health care bill does. the bill that mr. johnson would repeal has as its first backed to make sure that medicare is solvent for 12 more years. it is not by cutting medicare benefits. what it does do is cut 400-$500

million that goes to waste all aspects of medicare advantage and fraud and abuse if he has his way and repels the bill, it will eliminate the best step we have taken to make medicare solvent in the future. we need to protect medicare benefits for seniors. i do not believe in cutting back on them. we need to be responsible and that is exactly what we did in the health care bill. >> mr. johnson? >> we need to honor those problem -- promises in social security. medicare is a huge problem. the total unfunded liability of our three men in tablet programs is $76 trillion. our total u.s. asset base is $72 trillion. that is a real problem. that means to be addressed honestly. >> if i could just respond -- >> i was going to say that you

don't try to fix medicare is to create new entitlement or add another entitlement has an unfunded liability and take $500 billion away from medicare. there are 175,000 seniors in that -- in wisconsin that like that program. the new health care entitlement is something of a redistribution of health care from singers to an entirely new group of people. you don't fix what entitlement program by creating a whole new one that will be a huge budget buster. >> look at the exchange we just had. i offered a specific solution with regard to social security, raising fica level and he specifically rejected it with no solution all our alternative. on medicare, i pointed out that we had a specific thing that he wants to repeal and the doesn't

have an answer. he doesn't have a plan. he just wants to save that we have all this debt and these problems but he gives you no idea what he would do about it. that is the way you don't face criticism but is not the responsibility you need from a u.s. senator. >> i have a very specific proposal. we rebuild health care bill. that will save trillion's them not precisely. >> that will said trillions in unfunded liabilities. it will restore the $500 billion that has been taken out of the medicare program. >> the insurance companies will get their fair chunk of the back, you back to. >> left onto the next question. >> mr. johnson, you have called atlas shruggedk,

your foundation booked. in the book, they escape from the port will are portrayed as social parasites in the book. it promotes a selfishness as a virtue. what is it about her philosophy that appeals to you and what makes that a foundational book for you? percenter fine gold, the aspect of the thought that appeals to libertarians, her strong defense of individual liberty and for opposition to any form of collective the. so do yo agree that much social spending is a redistribution of wealth. >> i will dispute your description of "wha atlas shrug" talks about. people in the country have been

so overburdened with taxes that some point, they quit they don't quit all at once. they quit one by one. what the book talks about in a fiction manner is what happens to society when the producers of the society quit her this is because they have been overburdened by regulations and taxes. it is a warning what could happen to america. when you hear people talking about a tipping point, that is what we are concerned about. we have more people that are net beneficiaries of government that are actually paying into the system. that is a serious thing to worry about from my standpoint, "atlas shrugged" is a huge warning of what we need to avoid in this country. >> i believe in a community. i believe in the community of wisconsin. i give you credit for being

consistent with that book probably producers are a special group of people. i guess they are better than the rest of us. if things are got going their way, you take the position that people should not have unemployment compensation. your view has been that they don't want to work. you oppose minimum wage. you support trade agreements. it ships tens of thousands of jobs overseas and you say i'm a producers of that is good because it is creative destruction and it will work out in the end. it might work out in the end for you and other people who are well-to-do. what about all the other people in the community who are suffering? i don't think these people should never be allowed to not work if they can work. i know people in wisconsin who want to work. these policies that you support make it impossible for this hard-working wisconsin people to make a decent living. i assume that makes them

shrugged as well. >> you have a follow-up? >> one part of the discussion about wealth redistribution has to do with the progressive nature of the tax code. this has been part of the debate about the bush tax cuts. which included larger tax reductions for those in upper income brackets. to get specific on these ideas, does it make sense for the bush tax cuts to be extended for the wealthiest individuals? >> this is a free-form discussion. >> i think we have to have common sense on this. mr. johnson and i have both talked about the federal deficit. he calls the to pinpoint and i don't disagree with that. can we really a afford to make the federal debt as a much larger right now? had that we have to figure out a common-sense solution. the solution is to extend the tax cuts, middle-class tax cut

for working people and benefits wealthy people to some extent for those tax cuts that are for the very wealthy, we cannot afford it. it is $700 billion over the next 10 years. that will be a greater tipping point by itself. we have the, with a solution that makes sense and that is the right compromised at this point that i was support. as a matter of fact, mr. johnson opposed the tax cut for working people in the stimulus bill for 95% of all working families in america. there are tax cuts for businesses in the health-care bill and theyhire act provides tax cuts as well. >> senator feingold continues to put words in my mouth. i'm not opposed to these things. this is exhibit 1 how much the stimulus failed. the last thing we should do is

increase taxes on anybody in this weak recovery. when he talks about the top bracket, he is talking about 750,000 business. they employ 25% of the total work force. those are the individual businesses that pay under the individual tax. those are the engines for economic growth. i am all for the workers of wisconsin. i export product and reduce product. i export to about 25 different countries. one of our largest recipients is china. i have faith in the workers of wisconsin and america that we can get government out of the way and make sure the government creates an attractive environment for business creation and job creation, wisconsin workers and american workers can compete with anybody in the world. we live in a global economy. we have to compete i have the

faith and the wisconsin workers that we can compete because i do it every day. i am extremely supportive of the workers that work for me and the workers of wisconsin. >> here is the difference again -- he only talks about 5% of all the businesses. 95% of the small businesses in the country would not experience a tax increase if we did not do the cuts for the very wealthy. this is a big mess. yth. most of the jobs are created by people with average income. they are the engine of the economy in this country and they should not be disregarded in this way. >> we will go to the next question. >> the united states foreign policy but to chilly in the middle and here is taking a massive monetary and human toll free 1 afghanistan is in its 10th year as spilling over into the borders of pakistan.

the u.s. still has 50,000 troops in iraq. can the u.s. of for the current strategy abroad? what's this of a kind of policies do you support that will bring about a successful conclusion to our military presence by keep americans say? >fe? >> we cannot afford this on wise approach to terrorism including al-qaida. the afghanistan war originally had to do with that and i supported it. now the leadership of out that it is not in afghanistan they are principally in places like pakistan, yemen and somalia. this is costing us $100 billion per year. we cannot afford it and it is not the way to get at the enemy. i have taken the lead in the senate by saying we need a timetable that the president would propose to gradually bring those troops out of afghanistan. i was a senator who listened to wisconsin people who propose

that i did for iraq and they are following through on that. at first people said people didn't think that was a good idea and now troops are coming on. we have to have our priority by going after al-qaida making sure we don't dig a another huge deficit which is exactly what these unwise interventions are doing. >> we need to recognize that we are still under the threat of terrorism what we are trying to do in afghanistan is to deny sanctuary for the terrorists. that is where they launched the attacks for 9/11. we have to be mindful of where else they may be hiding. we need a strong intelligence capability date. i am not sure exactly how the senator will weaken our intelligence capability over his career. in terms of basic philosophy and putting our fine young men and women, let's acknowledge that. the people that step up to the plate and defend our freedom and

protect our nation are among the finest among us and need our total support i look at it through the lens of is there a vital interest for the american states? is there a clear and present danger? i don't see the intelligence reports. present obama does. for whatever reason, he is seeing something where he decided to surge 30,000 troops. in announcing that surge, he said we will start withdrawing in 16 months. in a conflict like afghanistan where we need the support of the villagers and we need the support of the afghan people, to not make that commitment to success makes your chances of success extremely difficult. i think that is unfortunate . >> with all of that being said, what does it mean to win in afghanistan? is that the place we need to win? >> you can now respond.

>> this has been a mistake of the last nine years. it is not about invading one country after another. it is about attacking organizations that is present in many countries around the world. it is about to strike al-qaida wherever they might pay. be. i have been on the intelligence committee for five years and i worked to try to find out where this threat is. people in the intelligence and military committee consider me a person who has worked artist to understand the threat of al- qaida in africa. the notion that you dismissed that it is weakening america -- that is dead wrong. it is unfair. we need to honor these people who are fighting for is over there when they come home very i took the lead in making sure there are veterans centers for making sure there are people who can get treated for mental health issues.

there will be centers around the state. i believe in honoring and supporting our troops in there and when they come home. i have been honored by the national organization of veterans service offices as the number one legislator in the country this year for my work on behalf of those veterans. vote? didn't you you are one of 25 senators that refused to vote for the resolution can -- condemning the ad in the new york times against general petraeus. >> i believe in freedom of space. i don't think senator should be spending time and des moines peoples, it was to be working on the deficit. we should be working on jobs. i will not vote for any resolution that wastes our time by trying to kill the speech of anybody. that is not the job we do in the cemetery that is against freedom. >> that doesn't show a great deal of support for our troops.

>> i don't think our troops was sitting around passing resolutions about he said she said. that is all we would ever do. this is serious work we do in the senate. standing around monitoring these people on the extremes is not what we should be doing. move to the next question. >> can we all just get along? [laughter] >> absolutely. that time out well. it seems as though the partisan fighting and bickering is the order of the day in washington and it appears as if the only business being done is one party blocking the other. if elected, how do you intend to get past that and get bipartisan action going and share the responsibility of governing that you have been given by the voters? can such a thing be done? got a record of problem-

solving. in my community over last 10 years, i have been involved in education issues. you deal with all types of people. it has been about accomplishing something and attacking problems and fixing problems and solving problems. i take that into the latitude to washington. we are talking about record deficits. since the democrats gained control of the congress, our deficit has exploded. a record deficit of $450 billion the first year and then $1.40 trillion and then another. in the last three budgets, we have added $3 trillion to our nation's debt. these problems require a seriousness of purpose. some of you want to go there and wanted to attack this problem. that is why i am doing desperate as normal lives ambition. this is a guy from oshkosh who takes a look at what has

happened in this country and says that someone has to step up to the plight and go to washington with good will in a bipartisan fashion. that does not mean i will leave my principles behind. i would go there with a dedication to address these problems and get to solve once and for all. i am not going there to bicker and be bipartisan. -- and be partisan. >> the question was about how would you do bipartisan things. i want to add to this question by saying i have probably been involved in more bipartisan initiatives than any senator, something like 40. i was the author of the mccain- of fine gold bill, of the most bipartisan bill in the last 10 years. we proposed a line item veto which the president has endorsed curre.

we have introduced bills where children can i get an dental care. the other night, you mentioned somebody that you had done cooperative work with. he wrote a letter to the paper saying that was not his experience with you at all. he supports me for the u.s. senate. >> you have a follow-up? >> it seems like the contention between the parties is played out with the use of the filibuster and even the anonymous call that is put on legislation both of which seem to contradict the principle that a simple majority when. ins. since these are several and not constitution amended it, do you propose changing them or limiting them? >> i respect the fact that the founders of this country created a constitution that tries to create a balance between the

house and the senate. i think the senate has to have rules where things don't go flying through. they tend to do that in the house. that is what i slowed down that cap and the trade bill print we make sure that did not pass too fast because we have this rule. i think it is being abused now. it is being used on almost every bill from ever bring anything up. both parties have been involved and i think it is worse now. right now, we have to have all 60 senators who want to get cloture present. the rest of them can be and the bahamas. they don't have to be there. one solution would be 60% of everybody present. senators tend to like their weekends. making them be there i think would help reduce the abuse. i do not want to completely eliminate thomas jefferson's idea of the senate being the cool off for the senate. he was a pretty smart guy. >> i agree, the senate should be

a deliberative body. it should be where legislation should be looked at carefully and those rules are there for a reason, to stop something. some feingold says he is bipartisan but two of the most bipartisan bills were passed last year with him being the deciding. remaking 1/6 of our economy, the health care bill, there was no bipartisanship there. he provided the 60 of the vote which is incredibly partisan print it was the same thing on the stimulus bill. they're rusted through hoping that would create jobs. that was a bipartisan basis. -- that was a partisan basis. that is what the voters of

wisconsin are objecting to this year. they saw your record for the last two years. >> the recovery bill was not only democrats. i was not the deciding vote. there are 61 the sprint susan collins voted for it was not just one party. it was mostly democrats but it is not true -- >> i stand corrected3. it was real close. >> if you don't buy a process that does not reach out to republicans, that is sad for the u.s. senate. i think you should give credit to the republicans who had the courage to work on a bipartisan basis to work together. that was not an entirely partisan bill. >> mr. johnson, anything to add? we have time for a seventh question because both of you have been very 68 tonight.

the u.s. supreme court's citizens united decision has opened the floodgates to unlimited amounts of cash being spent on negative camampaign advertising by rich special interest groups which don't have to reveal their identities. how dangerous do you think this development is for democracy? will this decision of foreign governments or terrorist groups to seek relief fund campaign ads? should we work to overturn this decision? if so, how, and what should we do to keep big money from anonymous sources from influencing the election outcomes? >> this is easily one of the worst decisions in the history of the supreme court. it says that everyone of you was in the same position as corporations. corporations have the same political rights as you do very the results of this are being seen in this election. there are millions of dollars being spent by out-of-state groups in ads against me and i have not say and the ads on my

behalf. i don't want any ads like that. they are hidden and you don't know who's paying for them. the middle of the foreign money involved. it is the destruction of our political process for the founders of this country did not believe that corporations are the same as the rest of us. we can pass legislation to require some disclosure of this information which i have supported, but fundamentally we need to overturn this bridge we will have to get one justice to realize that this decision was completely wrong. otherwise, our democracy will be completely submerged by the very core powerful corporate interests that already dominate washington. it will only get worse. >> i think campaign finance reform should be simple. i would be for total transparency and immediate or rapid reporting on the internet. assault ourd to individual rights to free

speech. that is what the mccain-fine gold build it. it was supposed to clean up campaign finance and make things more accountable. it has pushed money outside the political process. it has put money in to these537 groups were there is no accountability. we have no idea who is funding these ads. i know like attack ads and i don't like them now that i am in the process and they are used against me. my solution is simple -- let's do away with mccain-feingold and let's have total transparency and rapid disclosure on the internet and we know who is supporting each candidate and we know right away. we can bring campaign finance back into the system and let it be accountable. >> according to analysts, campaign money spent by outside groups this year is helping

republicans and seven democrats by a wide margin. why is that? democrats a corporate interests are trying to weaken the new wall street regulations and preserve tax breaks that encourage companies to send jobs overseas and republican said that spending is a reflection of deep dissatisfaction on the part of the american people with the policies of the obama administration and the democratic majority in congress and the senate. >> mr. johnson just refuse to answer the question about citizens united because he just endorsed it. it is benefiting tremendously in his campaign from millions of dollars of these ads and i am not and i don't want them. will you call on them to stop? >> i have no control over that periat. that is the right to free speech. >> will you ask them to stop? the answer is no. we are here in wisconsin and we

want to have our own election and the guy wants to be or u.s. senator will not use his free space to ask them to stop. that is how you should use your free speech. >> i agree with people saying the reason there is more money being spent on republican side is there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. people are concerned. people are very concerned about the toll out of control spending and debt. they are putting their money where the concern is. that is their right and they should have that freedom. >> the oil companies, the insurance companies, the mining companies are very concerned and they're hiding behind these ads because we will finally get some control over them. he is hiding behind as a nasty attack us from out of state and he refused to call on them to stop. that is a direct attack on wisconsin's political tradition of home-based campaigning. >> these individuals concerned about the country and they have the right to send their money to

a group that agrees with their position and those groups have a right to run ads. that is their freedom. i will not take that freedom away. you seem to want to do that. you want to be able to select who can have free speech and who doesn't. >> i want everyone to have free speech but i want everyone to disclose. you have not called on these people to disclose. you say you're for disclosure but you will not ask them to disclose them why don't you ask them to do it? >> [laughter] [applause] >> it is your loss, senator. >> >> this has nothing to do with the mccain-feingold law. >> we have time for one additional question. i don't know if we have time for a fall of soil will give each of you 90 seconds to give us what

solutions uc for the problems of illegal immigration. mr. johnson, we will start with you. >> i believe this is relatively simple. it is a big problem but the first step -- it has to be a two-step solution. we have to secure the borders. what we just secure the borders? i would not favor comprehensive reform because we tried that in the 1980's and that ended up being an incentive formal people to come over. i am against amnestied. we secure the border -- and put strong laws on the books. you don't pass laws that also creates incentives for people to come here illegally. senator feingold has voted for social security benefits to be

paid for illegal immigrants. he has voted for sanctuary cities. he has voted for food stamps for illegal in -- immigrants and that creates an incentive for you don't do those types of things. it is a two-step process. you have to secure the border, enforce the laws on our books, and once you have done that, take a look at who is left and let the dust settle part. i'm all for treating the people who remain here in a very humane fashion. >> i don't support social security benefits for undocumented people. that is false. mr. johnson does not want to solve the problem. this is a problem that the business community of the state has sprinted to do something about for you just want to secure the border. i regret what you on that. you want to people to be undocumented. we need to figure out a common- sense solution for that now, not a two-step process and let the

dust settled. all arizona debacle is going on because of that attitude. just close the borders? there are people here and we have to figure this out. unless your plans to pick up these people and send them back, that is not an answer. the answers they bring out penalties and temporary work permits for these folks. if they want to come back, another penalty and get in line for -- behind everyone else for citizenship. he doesn't want solve the problem and he is not in touch with the business community of the state. they demand that we take real action. just closing the border is not a serious attempt at solving all problems. we need comprehensive immigration reform. as president bush and president obama said it. >> we come now to the 62nd closing statements. by the toss of a coin, ron johnson you go first. >> i would like to thank the university of wisconsin and two nights of yours.

wisconsin voters have a clear choice. sam fweingold cast the deciding vote for the health care bill and the stimulus bill. we cannot afford these failed policies. i offer a different direction. i have been building a business for 31 years, producing products and as exporting products and creating jobs. i want to use my lifetime experience to get our economy growing again so we can create jobs and start addressing our national spending and debt issue. the promise of america is something incredibly precious. america is exceptional and it is our job to make sure that it not only survives for future generations but that it thrives. i decided to run for the u.s. senate and i'm asking for your vote. thank you and good night. >> as i said at the outset, the out -- difference between us would be the if we propose specific solutions to problems.

mr. johnson has offered no solutions. between the two of us, ask yourself who is on your side and who voted to control the insurance industry and not let them be in charge when it comes to health care and who voted against the trade agreements that sent the jobs overseas? i voted against them and he thinks they are a great idea and good for wisconsin. what is good for wisconsin is protecting jobs and protecting wisconsin values. if you give me the chance, i would like to continue to work on that. >> that concludes tonight's debate between the u.s. senate candidates. please, i warm round of applause for both candidates. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we provide coverage of american history all available for you on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites and find our content any time through the cspan video library. we take cspan on the run -- road with a bu digitals, bringing our resources to your neighborhood. the cspan members available in more than 100 million judge, created by cable and provided as a public service. >> all this weekend, live coverage from the texas book festival with eugene robinson on the splintering of black

america and the six years of captivity in the colombian jungle and sam harris on science and human values plus authors on the obama presidency. throughout the weekend, panels on medical mysteries, capital punishment, and infamous fugitives bridge get the entire schedule at bull. tvorg.. b ooktv.org. >> yesterday, the obama administration said it would lift the moratorium on deepwater drilling. the national commission on the bp deepwater spill will be to. live coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern. later, more campaign coverage. we will bring a live debate for the delaware open u.s. senate seat. the republican christie of doll faces a democrat k chrisoons. that begins >>