[speaking japanese]

>> i would like to see a venue established so that japan and taiwan can enter into discussions about the situation within our region. setting up such a venue might not be able to the government to government discussions. it might not be official, but i would like to see us work toward having dialogue with taiwan in such an arena. we should try for that. it should be japan and taiwan and perhaps the nine states could join us as well. >> [speaking japanese] >> i will be visiting taiwan next month, november 2, my first

visit in 14 years. >> we have time for one more question. >> hello. i am at the u.s. committee for human rights in north korea. i have one question regarding the abduction issue, the abduction of japanese nationals by north korea. i understand you had an incredibly strong stance for these nationals to return to japan, but to this day, only five have returned. what should the japanese government to in their approach in sharing-insuring these japanese nationals would return to japan? >> [speaking japanese]

>> unfortunately, since the return of the five japanese nationals who had been abducted, north korea has night admitted to the existence of any more objective japanese people within the country. -- abducted people within the country. >> [speaking japanese] >> beginning with the 13-year- old, there are many japanese people who have been abducted who are still in north korea. sorry about that. he was conducted at the age of 13. -- abducted at the age of 13.

>> [ speaking japanese] >> this is true not only of the abduction issue, but also the new clear development program of north korea. if north korea does not accept our demands, then it will never be accepted into the international community and it will never prosper as a nation. so the situation in korea would become even more difficult and they need to make a decision what they want to do. >> [speaking japanese]

>> and the demonstrations came to the decision that there were only two ways to change north korea and that's a strong pressure from the two countries and also discussions between them. >> [speaking japanese] >> what is important is the united states, japan and the other countries have always been deceived by north korea. it is important we are no longer deceived by that country. [applause]

>> the prime minister come it is always an honor and pleasure to speak with you and your bold and frank remarks. i want to recognize the presence of the shuttle foreign minister this afternoon. a great pleasure. [applause] i want to take issue with something my colleague said earlier. i am not so sure you could be elected to public office in the united states. we are not used to such frank talk. [applause] good luck with the gulf. thank you to everyone for coming today. [applause]

>> a live picture this afternoon. political scholars will analyze the impact of the supreme court's ruling in the citizens united vs the federal election commission.

it eliminated restrictions on campaign spending by outside groups. congressional democrats tried to pass a bill in response that would have required greater disclosure for campaign spending, but the measure failed to pass the senate. this is live coverage from the miller center at the university of virginia here on c-span. we expected to get underway in just a moment. >> we are standing by for the start of the discussion on campaign finance and the supreme court ruling in citizens united vs the federal election

commission. it looks like it will be just a couple of minutes before this gets underway. we will bring you live coverage when it starts here on c-span. >> local content vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the closely contested house races leading up to this november midterm election. >> i think the second district race in louisiana is worth watching for the rest of the country because there are only about four or five congressional districts in the country in which the republican might lose his or her seat to a democrat. this was the only district in the state that was held by democrats. it is easily the most democratic district, the only district in the state with an african- american majority. it appears tailor-made for him. he is not a typical republican,

determined to make a race of it. >> the communities are faced with the everyday issues we have. especially in the post-katrina recovery and now come to some questions of where can my children play? to my children have good schools? are there needs of the elderly that we have not addressed? >> he is an attorney and a former jesuit seminary. not your typical republican, soft-spoken. richmond is talking about the fact he voted against health care reform on the final vote. against the bill that was represented equal pay for women. and against some other bills that are very much important to the democratic constituency in the second district. that will be the issue. >> fight for people-i get the

chance to fight for those who are wronged by big business all the time. put people first, not profits. >> richmond is a step representative from the eastern part of the city. a leader in the legislative black caucus, rising star in democratic circles, but according gau and some of his sympathizers, he has some baggage as well. >> our city is struggling. our children need hope which makes richmond's so disgraceful. shady charity run by his girlfriend instead of the money helping kids, thousands went missing. nothing new for richmond. he had his law license suspended for lying under oath and was fined for ethics violations. cedric richmond come in it for himself, not for us.

>> it happened from the incident that occurred before hurricane katrina in the spring of 2005. the discipline did not come down from the state supreme court until after he ran against bill jefferson two years ago. so it seems fresh in the minds of some of voters, the actual incident is more than five years old. but it is going to be used against him. he owns up to it. he does not run from it, but it is deftly going to be an issue. i do not know how much of a difference is quite to make. i think the bigger it issue is going to be barack obama. but this is a district in which barack obama will play well. >> the city of new orleans has had its trials and also great champions, fighting to see through the tough times. cedric richmond is one of those champions. from coaching and entering kids to grow like he did come to pass in tax credits to help new orleans businesses get back on their feet, cedric has always

been there, making a difference for the community. new orleans needs cedric richmond in congress, and so do i.. i hope you give him your vote. >> i think the key for both candidates would be turnout. if we get a turnout that is proportionate regardless of whether the overall turnout is 30% or 50% or 90%, if the turnout is proportionate among black and white voters, richmond should win the race. i say should. i do not mean that judge mentally, but the numbers would favor him. -- i do not need to be judgmental, but the numbers would favor him. you have a minority of whites in the group who probably will vote for the democrat. the race sets up well for richmond. you want to turn out as many

white votes is you can if c you areao and identify the black vote you can make sure its turns out. i think that is the plan for both of these guys. >> c-span local content it was visiting communities and congressional districts as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our web site c-span.org/lcv. >> like discussion on in back of the supreme court's recent ruling on campaign finance, citizens united vs the federal election commission. >> america's experiment and constitutional democracy. it affects things like the tension between minority rule and the rights of minorities, the struggle to reconcile interest groups always central to american democracy with some

sense of the exalted, elusive idea of the public interest. and the uneasy connection between commerce and self- government. we're really fortunate to have an unusually gifted group of scholars and practitioners to provide the sort of rich and stimulating discussion of citizens united and also some of the proposals that have been prescribed to modify its effect on american democracy deserve. to start things off, we have three panels to discuss the implications of the case. then we will start to -- turn to experts on campaign spending to offer a reality check christmas sometimes called the miller center. i have as the panelists to keep their remarks brief and there should be plenty of time after the initial discussion among them for your questions and

comments. looking a over ther rsvp list coming of a distinguished group today. before we begin, let me introduce the panel in the order in which the will be speaking. in the interest of time, i will recognize them very briefly. i will not begin to convey their exceptional record of accomplishment. jerry burke is a professor of political science at the university of oregon. his most recent book confirms his reputation as a foremost scholars of the political economy. i think he is absolutely the best person to enlighten us about the historical development of the corporation. nancy rosenblum is a senator joseph clark professor of ethics and politics and government. i loved nancy's work because she is a political theorist who has

a deeper appreciation of politics. maybe that explains why she was just elected vice president of the american political science association. her most recent book is the best philosophical study i have read on how progress of reforms like campaign finance reform have affected political parties and more broadly, american democracy. i have already expressed my affection and respect for the third panelist, michael malbin. many of you know him from his inspiring leadership of the campaign finance institute. he is also a professor of political science at the university of albany suny. i first got to know him as a mentor of sorts. although i never had the privilege to study with him, he taught me the importance of combining investigation of core american values and rigorous

research. michael was the one who taught me that interesting data is not an oxymoron. i am really looking forward, as i'm sure most of you are, to hearing his analysis of the latest data on spending patterns thus far in the 2010 election. he and his staff i know were working all night to get that data together for us today. our first responded will be allison hayward, vice president of policy of the center for competitive politics. she wrote a very impressive brief for the plaintiffs in the citizen case and some equally aggressive defenses of the decision since it was issued. she poses released from challenges to the view that this case denigrates the idea and practice of american democracy. peter overby to my right is one of my favorite npr reporters and i am not-i'd like npr. i am a big fan of the creed of

-- creative and systematic way he travels the financial trail. he received one of the highest honors in broadcast news for reporting sucs that set the bar about money, power, and political influence. spencer overton is professor of law at the georgetown university law school. his writings show him to be deeply interested in the obstacles to self-government and a large complex commercial republic. spencer has practiced what he preaches from 2009-2010, the principal deputy assistant attorney general of the department of justice and the office of legal policy. a vantage point that allowed him to partner with the office of white house counsel and the white house domestic policy

council to leave the obama administration's policy efforts on democracy and government reform. we will also be joined by trevor potter who is on his way in a cab and will be here by 12:30. i will introduce him when he gets here. with the introduction of outstanding panel, we will begin with jerry. >> thank you. can everybody hear me? is the microphone on? ok. can someone put up the cartoon? i will start. thanks. we will get it up in a moment. i really want to thank you for inviting me here today. it is an incredible honor to be here at the behest of the miller center in washington and with this terrific group of panelists. as i understand it, my role on this panel is to try to stimulate some discussion up

here and ammonia as well by putting citizens united within a broad historical context. what i would like to do today is open with a brief account of the historical and changing status of the business corporation before the law and then talk about how social movements and in particular left-wing intellectuals, historic and may be in the present, responded to the growing autonomy of the corporation from its shareholders and from the state. i do not suspect you can read this cartoon, unfortunately. i was hoping you could. i had not planned on reading it, but i will. [laughter] i will use my best dramatic voice. i do not know if i can do this little girl. this is a cartoon sent to me by a former student who worked on wall street, lost his job on wall street. i think he's working a bit more

these days. anyway, i will read it. it says, the fight for our rights, america's shame. the little girl says to her dad, daddy, this whole story, a company goes bankrupt. what is that? oh, honey, an early 21st century, corporations were thought of nearly as things. to find legally as persons. an affair class with less rights than you and night. at that time, if they were in failing health, corporations would be allowed to go bankrupt. to die. and in the skies of the bottom are saying, we did all we could. it's gone. but two was a brave president's stopped the carnage in gave felon corporations bailouts. it says, a monument to corporate rights bush and obama are there. the corporation would not be left to die again. american then could not afford health care for so-called natural persons, but that was a step toward writing centuries of

discrimination. in 2010, in a landmark decision, the supreme court ruled that corporations have full first amendment rights. speak few really, corporations, says the courts. the struggle was hard fought but eventually america recognize that corporations truly our people. the placards of these guys say, we shall overcapitalized. legal fictions, but their feelings are real. corporate power. [laughter] today, corporations or by its citizens with the same rights as anyone. now, sickened at your mommy and go to bed. the little girl says, good night, the dow chemical co., i levee. [laughter] i show this cartoon because i think is funny and clever. as a student of the political history of the corporation, i was amazed at how much it reminded me how much history to repeat itself or maybe how much the same story gets played out

over and over again. we have never changed the story in some ways. as i read it, this cartoon tells the story of the development of corporate legal rights over the past decade. freedom from bankruptcy, freedom from both economic and political regulation. this is a lot like the story of the modern corporation at its birth in the late 19th century. the leading sector of american industrialization was the railroads. they were the first to use the corporate form extensively. like real estate today, real roads massively were overbuilt in the late 19th centuries. -- the real roads were massively overbuilt in the late 19th century. it fell into insolvency of from the 1870's-89 days. while the federal government did not bailout this road corporations, the federal court actively protected railroad corporations from the kinds of

their creditors. it was -- there is no national bankruptcy law at the time so when they fail to pay their debt, the reds landed in federal court where managers were booted out and were put in receivership until they could be reorganized. until the 18 eighties, the courts conceived of corporations in receivership as no more than the legal some of the many individual private contracts with there's shareholders. corporations were just a bunch of contracts come individual contracts. legal historian calls this the private artificial entity theory of the corporation. it was not seen as natural, but as a creation of its creditors and its shareholders. all of this changed in 1884 when the famous robber baron jay gould sent its lieutenants in to federal district court in st. louis and ask the judge to put

his real way into receivership prior to default. this was unprecedented, right? the corporation only goes into receivership once it has failed to pay its debt. basically, they go in and know they will not be allowed to pay their debt and go into court and say, put us into receivership prior to the creditors putting us into receivership. and they ask the judge as well to a point the incumbent managers of the corporation to be the receivers. any other option they argued would decimate not only the wabash real way, but its relationship to j cooled's huge national integrated system. the corporation, they argued, had value. its individual contracts had none. court agreed. in doing so, it ushered in a new era of thinking about the corporation. now i was thought of as an

autonomous and natural being -- in now was thought of as an autonomous and natural been trying to its individual contracts with shareholders or, for that matter, workers who also needed to be paid. they were also part of the debt of what corporations owned. -- owed. the corporation was in fact been seen as a natural person. state legislatures and u.s. congress responded in kind. if huge powerful railroad corporations were no longer regulated by their contracts, or by the market for that matter, that it was justified for government to regulate them. but in a series of court cases, calling into question the right of legislatures to exercise police powers over the railroads, the courts him than government regulation by defining the corp. once again as a natural person with rights to due process under the fifth and 14th of them to the constitution -- amendments to

the constitution. this did not in the regulation was unlawful. the supreme court down the interstate commerce act, which was created to regulate the railroads constitutional, it merely meant to restore constitutional boundaries on regulation and it would be the court's, not legislatures, that would police those boundaries. so by the turn of the century, the business corporation had been redefined as a natural entity, which like a natural person, and constitutional rights independent of the state an independent of its shareholders. social movements and intellectuals disagreed pretty vehement about how to respond to the legal redefinition of the modern corporation at this time. like the american federation of labor, the leaders of that organization and the roosevelts adviser welcome to natural entity theory of the corporation

because it undermined the ideology of free markets and justified building capacity, building countervailing powers and the reunions and in the state. it was this logic that underpinned the 1937 tillman act which regulated corporate dissipation and elections. others like the farmers alliance, the knights of labor and the supreme court justice argue that legal kong -- legal concentration of corporate power in periled both liberty and democracy. as brandeis put it in his critique of the other side, mr. chisholm will safeguard the still nepotism. in his view, and the view of the leaders of the knights of labor, it was necessary to reverse the legal decision which accorded personhood to corporations and break up concentrations of corporate power antitrust law. this debate i don't think was

ever fully resolved in the 20th century. it seems to reemerge like clockwork and moments when questions of corporate power become very public. moments like the new deal, the 1960's, and maybe today. citizens united overturns a portion of its statute, which pertains to both business and labor. it accords corporations and unions freedom from regulation under the first amendment to the constitution. and so like afl and the 1900, the afl-cio, in fact, today have applauded citizens united. indeed, it was not corporations to first used the ruling to advertise so effectively against blanche lincoln in last spring's democratic primary race for senate in arkansas. but like the historical division between bites of labour and the afl, the labor movement is deeply divided again between the

status of corporations and elections committee divided over citizens united. seiu has come out unequivocally against the ruling. like the knights of labor before them and brandeis, they complain that granting rights written for natural persons to corporations makes a sham of the constitution because it tips the competition so heavily in favor of business. but maybe the most cogent critique of citizens united from this sort of perspective came from justice stevens whose dissent cites a long history of cautions against corporate personhood from jefferson and brandeis to mccain and fine gold. >> thank you. i hope i have added some historical perspective to this case and to the discussion. >> nancy? >> myself assigned topic is

political parties and anxiety of influence. the size in this discussion which citizens united is just a per-share two things. two things beyond the fact that though there are many avenues of undue influence of access and indebtedness, a bad dependency and a word of clientele isn't, since the 1970's, political energy has focused on money in campaigns and elections. one thing the sides shares from the side of political theory. the operative idea of political equality is the day. from progressives then and now come any quality is keep an agreement about what he called objection aware is elusive. apart from certain repulse of things come apart from unparalleled corporate resources or billionaire. if the rhetoric is -- the rhetoric is familiar. the citizens united majority, at the mist and the quality rationale is constitutionally

accepted, but both sides take up just one facet of inequality. big money. but the political with blisters of the poor and disorganized for in the participation deficit is disturbing in during. the second thing the sides share is what i will call anti-part ism. using advocacy and interest groups to influence elections, but preserve strengthen parties. prohibiting them from spending incarnation with their candidates is a candidate should be or appeared to be independent come in from raising and spending on federal funds for any purpose including non campaign activities. the dissent in citizens united noticed this advantage, but like other progress of critics, they do not object to excluding parties from the general liberation. neither side is particularly inhibited when it comes to institutional effectiveness and underscoring popular aversion to partisanship. it is as if parties are just one other interest group amongst

others, perhaps the worst one. american anti-party isn't is not surprising. it is only episodic and the fact it is less apparent. it is a durable term of abuse. they lauded institutional forms of political activity like social movements and citizen advocacy groups. in an era of mass democracy, the presence reiterated the american penchant for nonpartisan independent voters. all of this is like today. and it and its has a definite luster, not just a political fact, but a post a political ad kennedy. there are reasons why we should want to check anti-partism. it requires strong parties.

let me make four obvious points that are formed by a political science and justified i think by political theory. parties continue to play their original role of going beyond ad hoc coalitions and specific issues to organize government. they provide this minimum political accountability and unable peaceful turnover of government. they provide comparative the comprehensive accounts of public issues and public good and drop comparatively coherent lines of political division that moderate special interest groups, single of it is a groups and self-styled public interest groups. they find, recruit come entering candidates at every level of government and create an organizational capacity to integrate national and state parties ideally. they encourage participation. parsons of the most consistent purchase depends. in the u.s., parties have been the most persistent forced an

expansion of the electorate. there are three reasons why people do not participate. they don't want to come they can't come up for it seems more important, no one asks. -- they don't want to, they can't, or more important, no one asks. statutory obstacles scatter responsibility exacerbates the fragmentation of the influence, provoke the formation of shadow parties, interest and advocacy groups tales that wagged the party dog, hobble ties between astra and state parties, and reduce parties capacities and willingness to compensate for any quality of participation. pushed, many critics of the parties will grow to meet concede that no other institution has to the responsibility or the capacity to serve these purposes. they stand in clear contrast to corporations to single-minded the profit. as important, party's stand in

clear contrast to innumerable interest and advocacy groups. these groups whether their published or professional, seek to influence not to occupy office. they're like institutional permanent and accountability. they're organized to pressure. as one put it come inverting the text, every little meaning has the movement of its own. i should add in a world of organized interest, the scripps multiplied the effects of persistent to generational political inequality. any acceptance of parties for the most part is pragmatic, and philosophical, and grudging. it does not weaken the rationale that put forth for putting party is at a disadvantage, relative to these other groups. one rationale is the obvious one, the party's corrupt the democracies by channeling money into interest groups, and betting and accretion of dependencies that reformers would suffer.

on this view, you will notice it makes little difference whether parties are agents or principles. that is whether there the interest a special interest or extortionist. the anxiety of influence is more complex and i want to make this point clear. there's a separate rationale. the task party pursuing a own special, even sinister, interest in gaining an entrenching control of government. on this few come every form of spending by political parties creates reliance and reliance on the parts of candidates and officials. justice byron white striking formulation "effective use of party resources in support of party candidates may encourage candidate loyalty and responsiveness to the party." this overwrought suggestion that loyalty and responsiveness are self-evident evils fails to of knowledge what i think ought to be the self evident democratic could a reasonable degree of party unity. not least because parties are

one institution that are least potentially a resource of resistance to lobbying and other improper dependencies. that is this institution can do what independent good souls can night. what should be done now that the law gives greater latitude to corporations and interest groups while maintaining specific burdens on parties? two responses look too excited to politick of voter participation by donation. the democratic fix for and democratic dependency. and the reserves -- and rivers, small donations will flood the system and to leave big money. -- in the reverse, small donations will flood the system and lead to big money. parties are not excluded as recipients of vouchers, but not favored coming either. the same idea lies behind public financing. in contrast, public financing in the u.s. is designed to support individual candidates and to bypass parties. on their own terms, advocates

can see it is doubtful the fusion of small money would reduce, much less come off the big money in clientele ism. these proposals might get more small donors out, but not -- once again, they do not address the political standoff. a mix of distribution schemes to candidates and parties would be desirable. two fixes are promising from my point of view. they would begin to lift the constraints to compel national parties to engage in what has been called a natural act of this association from the candidates of the state and local counterpart. it proposes to allow unlimited corded expenditures between parties and candidates and contributions are made in small amounts. the dynamic of credit to remain. but i think links between federal and state parties and candidates not fire walls is

what is needed. i understand the chief objective behind the proposal is to provide incentives for parties to solicit small donations and thereby, in large the purchase a put story high. and so far as it is to strengthen part is relative to other groups, its effectiveness might likely turn on raising the ceiling of corn ended funds. finally, when it comes to the nation's to parties dedicated to registering voters and get out the vote and organizations and communications, i think what you to consider is soft money bands. invest in long-term organization and education is arguably at least as important for exciting purchase a patient a small donations to candidates at elections. dedicated soft money might prefer parties to -- the historical lull. speaking to what i see is the most disturbing deficit. more broadly, and nine campaign party organization crews are rise in a political time that

extends beyond the fanatic news and election cycle and not provide some incentive to go beyond the rational prospecting that i think in trenches under representation. the american anti party is etched particularly the book -- particularly deep today. you will recall it was not so long ago that the opposite of version dominated and the parties were disparaged as centrists and into distinguishable -- and in distinguishable. systemic reforms of the democratic process release should attend, i think, to the distinctive purpose is served only by parties and partisanship. we should be alert to what i think democracy stands to lose if parties are politically fragmented, if they're morally diminished, and if partisans are school the and independents

lauded. thank you. >> thank you. michael? >> thank you s,id. thank you, miller center for having been great partners in this venture. i plan to speak in more immediate terms than the previous speakers. and will not be talking about law or history or theory. although, there will be some overlap with some of what nancy rosenblum said. but i plan to take my start from the impact of citizens united or on practical politics and policy. i have entitled my talk "stop whining and start working."

there has been a basic theme running to the coverage of the role of interest groups and this year's election. the theme is more less the conventional wisdom, there's been a huge increase. it is a republican, led by business corporations as opposed to other entities such as advocacy groups. and that it was caused by citizens united. well, let's divide the participants or groups into two different piles for the sake of showing some information. and we will look at the money from the kind of expenditures that get reported were disclosed and then those that do not. in the reportable spending, yes,

there has been a substantial increase. yes, it is led by pro-republican groups as you can see in the charts for 2010. they are about 75% higher for election year and into the misspending than they were -- in public spending than they were previously. the republicans are wind up quickly -- more quickly than the democrats. these are measuring mid october to mid october, by the way. reportable spending is only part of the picture. in 2008, there was only 30% of the entire spending picture and the rest was not reported spending, mostly nonprofits, organized 5 as01, advocacies c4 or c5's.

what about 2010? there is a possibility this increase the ec was just a matter of moving money from one pile to another because citizens united liberated it. here's what happens, and these are just estimates, but it is consistent methodology which is all anybody has, so here's the estimate is spending on congressional elections by political committees and nonprofits including all the money that they estimate our budget -- and what you see is an increase of about 40% from 2008- 2010. so that means, yes, the totals are up 40%. not 75%, so that means there is a migration from one set to another set, but still, there is

more. and it is more republican side in the democratic side. so much is true so far. does this prove a citizens united a fact? i would say, not so fast. if you go back to the table, you see the surge really started -- in the nonprofit money, more dramatic than others, the big surge began in 2018. -- the big surge began in 2008. so far, not a big increase in the for-profit business corporations. some, but not huge. although, that may happen in the future. so what this tells us is that the issue, and as nancy rosenblum explained earlier, the issue is much bigger than this specific legal decision or

citizens united. it is about rich and powerful people who are simply unable to find ways to spend money under a variety of roles. some people like that, and some don't. the fact is, they can do it. the question is, what, if anything, should a policy response be? well, if you basically like the way things are, nothing. or do away with regulation some of alison's colleagues would like that. but if you don't like it, there are approaches that have been offered so far. one is disclosure and the other is a kind of reregulation or partial regulation as much as you can get. from my perspective, i think enhanced disclosure is just fine.

and we can debate that. but i think you'd be mistaken to think that would have a major effect on the balance of power in the system. as far as regulation, i say, let's revisit that point. let's start thinking again about these issues. i would describe the old approach to try and stop spending -- iowa to be clear about something. i support contribution limits. but this was the old approach to spending limits. it is the old strategy. let's try to put a lid on all of this. meanwhile, it's just abuses out the side and there's not much you can do. i --t just oozes out the side and there's not much you can do. i think it has brought us to a dead end.

as a result, we have been making the argument that it is time to shift paradigms'. it is time to think about building up, that is, to enlarge the pot instead of sitting on the lid or trying to sit on the bid. and to do that, as nancy alluded, by trying to empower the many to empower small donors and volunteers. there are any number of incentives out there for trying to enhance the rules of small donors. there are direct owner incentives such as rebates and tax credits. by the way, i should say in response to something said earlier, rebates to have the affect significantly changing the mix in the class is a

people who participate in the system. there are party incentives, which you heard and to describe. their candidate incentives such as matching funds, which i will talk about in a moment. the question, with incentives like these may a significant difference to the overall balance of power? again, i am more optimistic about this than we just heard. analyzing federal elections, all 50 states and new york city, in most elections, most money comes from big donors, people would give $1,000 or more in terms of their income, they tend to be over to a $50,000. in some states, though, and in new york city, the results were different.

-- attended the over $250,000. in some states, though, and in new york city, the results were different. them look at some of the results and i can talk about other states, but we don't have forever. as an the other public funding systems coming candidates in new york, yet to choose whether to participate. if the candidates for city council, for those who did not participate, they're finding it pretty much like the average state legislature in the country. this is the mix of money, 64% from people who gave $1,000 or more and 70% for those who gave up to $250. but for participating candidates, the results are radically different. just for the private money alone, the dissipating candidates, 37% -- participating candidates, 37%

from small donors. when you look of the multiplier effect and you attribute the matching money to the donor who actually gave it, this is what it looks like. 65% from small donors, 15% from larger. that change occurs without driving a large donors out of the system. the change occurs by trying to give incentive for candidates and parties to pay attention, to bring new people into the system. this is the kind of summary table. our conclusion is these kinds of laws that focus on building up to or can have major impact, not just minor. they bring new people into the system. we're convinced from the survey work, a different mix of people into the system. they shift the balance of power or can shift the balance of power without spending all of your time trying to sit on the lid.

the important point is that empowering small donors is only partly about money. there are clearly links between giving and doing, between the kinds of incentives that get people to give small contributions and turning them into volunteers or into becoming campaign actors. as a result, we think about this not principally about money or only about money, but we think about this as a second political power of natural persons and a large way. as a result, our bottom line for after citizens united is simply, it is time to shift gears. it is time to shift the way we think. the reason to shift is because an approach based on participation can work. [laughter]

>> is at the conclusion? i just wanted to make sure. allison, let's start with you. time for the reality check. >> thank you for having me. i have just a few minutes. i will speak perhaps quickly. first of all, is a printed in general observation, i want to say-as a pre-emptive and an observation, i want to say nancy is correct extend their people defending citizens united is in less than the term is sensitive to the burden being placed on the activity by parties. i do not think i am one of those people. i hope as time passes, what has up till now has been unsuccessful litigation efforts to revisit some of those issues will be more successful. as of now, the couple of challenges posted to get the

court to reist -- rethink have not done so well. since this is all tamale a game of laws as much as political politics, that is a problem. i guess what i generally want to say is history is hard to see when you are part of it. let's take a minute and quickly, what did citizens united say? . .

lots of tons you see citizens united being described as released corporations found on limits and political advocacy that they have. there were not limits on grass- roots lobbying. it depends on the jurisdiction. there certainly were not limits on spending. you might scratch your head and asked what the big deal is. it is not legally what citizens united did, but politically that it came at a time when there was tremendous engagement and interest in political elections. there was a lot of controversy.

it is very competitive in a lot of places. we might see a turnover of perhaps one or both houses. that has been seen as a referendum, fairly or unfairly, as a referendum on a president that has been fairly ambitious. guess what -- if you are an american invested in politics, you are probably really interested in seeing that your interest is conveyed in this campaign, so of course, there is going to be a lot of spending, and there would have been without citizens united, but citizens united is this x factor that has gotten people really concerned about some of the history of corporate involvement in politics, like jerry was talking about, and i think that history -- like i said, history is hard to see when you are part of it. progressive era history is important to keep in mind. there is this interstitial time

between the new deal and the war and sort of now. let's think about what happened to the notion of a corporation during that time because we are not talking at citizens united about jay gould's corporations or above the -- or about the corporation's e-mailed against. we are talking about citizens united. it does not have any shareholders. why have a corporation if you are not going to have shareholders and be involved in the economy? the corporation status to date is the firm of any sort of entity, not necessarily profit- making. i have not studied it closely, but it is probably an artifact of the way the tax code has evolved. a lot of the ideas have been before there was an income tax. a lot of it is an intentional

consequences of people trying to order their affairs in a way that makes sense to engage as an entity -- a lot of it is an unintentional consequence of people trying to order their affairs. he gives them a tool to get a taxpayer's id number so they can open a bank account. they have an entity. they are not just in aggregate of individuals where the group might be vulnerable to someone flaking out. you have a thing that proceeds beyond just participation of particular individuals, so, fine. citizens united recognized, i correctly, that not all " -- have to be treated with one big broad brush, and it is inappropriate to. would a more tailored law survive? i do not know. i can imagine there are jurisdictions that have special limits on gaming licenses for liquor licenses for brothels in certain states like my whole

one. and would feel that they have a vote for it limits on the political expenditures of these particular kinds of licenses. they were not really recognized as having a property right. disreputable for something. with that succeed in front of this court? i do not know. nobody has tried it, but i'm not sure it would not. if the legislature could come to the courts and say, "we have a good reason why this particular industry, because it is a public utility, does not belong in the political conversation. it is just too dangerous." like i said, it has not been tried yet. disclosure is the remaining two will of local regulation in the wake of citizens united, and there has been all sorts of what i considered to be killed fought through notions of what disclosure means now. i think disclosure still has to pass the test of being related

to some sort of legitimate state purpose, so you cannot just write a disclosure law that is a proxy for burdening political speech or is a back door for suppressing a particular group or industry you do not like. i think incentives for donations are fine. i'm not sure they are going to give the satisfying results that may be cfi does, but i am certainly not, especially in the state and local context, against somebody experimenting with them. and i will close with this -- my favorite quotation, and this is in the context of contributions by the underworld, which i think is kind of interesting. we do not talk about the political corruption and contributions of the underworld, but in 1960, they did. maybe we should.

"campaign money must come from someplace, and if the good people cannot supply it, the bad ones will." [laughter] my sentiments there is it closed one. if you do not like the fact that ge executives are giving money in the political process, you get your people to come or if you are an adversary of ge, you get your people to. ultimately, it is pluralism that keeps democracy simple and flexible. >> thank you. peter. >> ok, thank you. i am pretty honored to be here. thank you for including me in this. otherwise, i would be sitting out there trying to keep up. instead, i'm sitting here trying to keep up, which is harder. there were about three points

that i wanted to touch on here. going back, as allison did, to the first days after the ceo's decision and people assessing what it meant, one of the ideas that i heard a lot then and have continued to hear since then, is that corporations are too risk- averse to get into this, and the more i thought about it, the more i felt this does not hold up. we do not know, clearly. there is all the 501c money where we just do not know where it came from, but if you look at the history of corporate involvement in politics, they gave a lot of soft money to parties.

there was a big battle over whether that money would be disclosed early on. after disclosure became mandatory, they kept on giving. soft money totals went up. they had to give to the host committee's for the party conventions, which the host committees are presented as non-partisan events, but we have all been to conventions. we all know what they are like. they give to the republican and democratic parties. they are governors' association's, and those are clearly partisan organizations, giving directly for election- related activities. the more i thought about it, the more it made me think that the idea of corporate money going into politics is like lobbying, where everybody says, "we really

do not like to do lobbying. it is distracting." but everybody does it. and everybody does more and more of it. it is not like anybody ever cuts their lobbying budget in washington. my conclusion is that the citizens united case did not give corporations a big new vineyard in which to play, but what it seems to have done, as far as i can tell, is it has given corporate lawyers and executives greater comfort in playing where they do play. anecdotally, we get referred to corporations being active in this cycle, and after election day, we will get a more

elaborate picture, but it seems to me that they are willing to get involved in this and get involved in a way that was not true before the decision. another point i wanted to look back, and nancy's discussion of the party committees, the parties.party's -- the citizens united case and the general rise of outside money groups takes us. it is not so interesting on the democratic side because ollie democratic donors seem to have gone somewhere else this cycle, but if you look on the republican side, just in the past couple of weeks, american

crossroads, american action network, an american future fun have announced that they collectively are going to put another $50 billion into races that had not been in play, they were going to put them in play. the republican national committee has been, as far as i can tell, essentially invisible in this cycle. they are not running ads. they have not been doing what the dnc has been doing, which is making big contributions to the house and senate committees. their most recent disclosure report was, as of october 1, they have $40 million on hand. compared to what they are putting in two house races to make them more competitive. that leads to the question of where this leads us.

this is all queueing up for 2012, right? are these groups still going to be active at this level? what is going to happen at the republican national committee going into a presidential year? and when the people elected in 2010 come to washington, who are they going to be looking to as their patrons? is it the republican national committee, for is it going to be karl rove and ed gillespie with american crossroads and sort of the rnc in exile? john boehner has been doing a lot of fund raising. mitch mcconnell has been doing a lot for senate candidates. none of these people are the

party, and the party is at a much lower level of dissent -- of visibility than it has been since watergate, i think. so i am really curious where that is going to need us. i actually wanted to say, about the impact, how why do my job, spending a lot more time on the computer trying to track these groups. i spent a couple of days trying to track down the coalition to protect seniors, and the "new york times had a story on it a couple of weeks ago, and i had done my thing before then and did not get any further than they did.

they were running ads. they are running occasional bad, actually. they are certainly not at the visibility level of american crossroads for american future funds. they have been funding adds in house races. they have a web site. the website has 8 "contact us" e-mail link. e-mails that i sent went off into the ether somewhere. the website has a lot of discussion about medicare advantage, which is a program that did not fare well in the health-care overhaul. i started making calls in the health insurance lobbyists because the health insurance industry runs the medicare

advantage programs. one person said, "it was not us. do you want to try these guys?" came to a bunch of dead ends. my conclusion is someone who cares deeply about medicare advantage, but i do not know cares for financial reasons. as far as i can tell now, and this is just my experience, coalition to protect seniors is completely opaque. i am basically an advocate of disclosure. i think we should know more about them than we do, and i think it would be better for the elections system if we did, but that is their decision. that come 2012, we will see more of this.

i assume we will see more 501c activity unless the irs suddenly springs into action and cracks down on groups that they considered to have been registered as 501c's while acting as 527 political groups. i expect that it is not going to stop, basically that we are just going to keep going from now straight through november 2012 at least. >> thank you. very uplifting. >> doing my job here in -- doing my job. >> i want to thank you for that great introduction earlier, but i would be in trouble as dean if i did not point out that i am at george washington university rather than georgetown university.

>> i apologize. >> no problem. it happens all the tons. i want to focus today on professor rosenblum's remarks on political parties. i am familiar with michael's work, and i work overlaps to a certain extent. also in terms of professor burke, i'm not a historian, so i'm not going to reveal my lack historic experience by siding with a pia -- by citing wikipedia. professor rosenblum, however, makes a number of insightful and provocative claims about political parties, and a lot of them i agree with, and i have some flow will with a couple of them. but i want to focus on this news story of the day, the news story about secret money in politics and how it is such a big thing.

we have these independent groups, wealthy donors, corporate donors giving money to independent groups. as a policy matter, a political matter, constitutional matter, we should definitely have disclosure of large contributions to independent groups, but we can talk about some of the donors to the nra be exempt from disclosure? should this be a pure disclosure bill, or should we cap on spending restrictions on foreign controlled corporations, government contractors, and oil companies? we could have legitimate policy debates about whether the amounts that have to be disclosed are currently too low or should they be higher. real discussions on should we make the law less complex. i understand why the media right now is focused on secret money and disclosure.

this is the fire of the moment, the fire that needs to be put out. it also seems like low hanging fruit because most people agree that they should know where this money is coming from, that we should know as a democracy. so certainly, please keep reporting, but at the end of the day, i believe we are going to have meaningful disclosure and it is going to be ruled constitutional by the court. the question is going to be -- what is next? that is where we really turned to prof. rosenblum's points here. i agree with her point about the problem not being a lack of the quality but really extreme inequality. in other words, the problem is not that we do not have this mechanical equality where all candidates have the same exact amount of money for we have this

scenario where spending limits are in place for should be in place. that is not necessarily the biggest problem. it is a little naive and unrealistic to except that candidates who are competitive are going to value the quality over winning an election, right? so i agree with that, but i also disagree with the notion that wealth is irrelevant, that the government should always ignore class distinctions, that government should not try to empower 1 route that is disempowered -- one group that is disempowered. the notion that disclosure, because it can deter big contributions just as it can deter small contributions, that we should not have any disclosure. i have a philosophical difference with that perspective, with the notion that from my perspective, i

believe the government of by and for the people requires that the people have some idea of where the large money is coming from and that democracy has the power to ensure that government is not captured by one small class of people in our society. government has the power to recognize massive disparities in the distribution of wealth. i also agree on the notion that often reformers ignore the poor and the disorganized. that the democratic idealists -- that the democratic ideal is some kind of objective, delivered it notion -- deliver it to the notion. her ideas the both sides take up just this one facet of inequality, the unparalleled

corporate resources compared to the amount of money that most folks have to spend, in that they do not focus on the port and the disorganized. she is also concerned about this criticism of responsiveness, the notion that will see and responsiveness is somehow bad. i agree that some reformers are wrong when they do not want unions or the nra to influence the process, for they are just dismiss it of special interests, even though they represent a number of average americans who do not have resources and would not be able to participate in another way. there is this kind of upper- middle-class taint as if politics is always delivered of, like some kind of war room free from influence, and also, that our biggest problem on a

democracy opened up by citizens united is that as opposed to bumblers of $2,300 contributions steering money, we have now have -- we now have corporations doing it. there is some flow list empathy's i probably have with allison in terms of that. -- some pluralist into the -- some pluralist empathy. in terms of incentives, the notion of how can parties -- not the government here, but how can parties, political actors, be a major force behind mobilization? when we talk about something like allowing political parties to coordinate with candidates and using small donors, contributions to do that, i

think that is good. encourages parties to go after small donors, and it also allows for parties to coordinate with candidates, kind of mobilize and to engage in real political activity. my biggest quibbles and problems here would be i think professor rosenblum is dismissive of the small donor match where you have a contribution of $100 or less, and it is matched four 21, so small donors far more important. i agree that vouchers are politically impractical, but in terms of the match here, i think that hurt take is that these small donors cannot offset the big donors, and i think that is an empirical point that she has not necessarily established. i would agree that there is a question at which how much of a match to you have to do, and i

do not pretend to have the answer to it. i also think that hurt take is you will not get a less affluent set of political players at the table. i think you will get a less affluent set at the table. i would say that it may contribute to mobilization there. finally, she proposes that we basically restore restoration of the soft money system, allowing parties to collect large checks in order to engage

in localization of voters. my concern with this is it is really a focus on a lease rather that -- in leets rather than individual citizens -- focus on elites rather than individual citizens. i think that our real starting point needs to be average individual citizens rather than in powering particular elites here. we does need to go back to the situation. political players focusing on large donors to get the money they need, which is one tool to mobilize voters that they need to mobilize, and faults are seen as tools. voters become tools as opposed to real, democratic engagement

here. i also think that third-party groups currently do this. the tea party, as i understand it from some reporting, is financed by the kofi brothers and some other folks, and certainly, liberal have some large contributors to finance voter mobilization. and i think there are so many other things we could do to mobilize to some power groups. 75 million people did not participate -- >> [inaudible] >> ok. >> don't anybody take this personally. >> thank you. >> thank you. all right, we are in good shape. there is 75 million people who

did not vote in 2008 who were eligible. of that 75 million, 80% were unregistered. the united states could modernize its voting system if the objective is to include a number of folks who are disenfranchised. the focus is building on for people and immigrants, right? right now, a lot of states are not complying with the public assistance provisions of the national voter registration act, right? if they simply comply, we would add 3 million voters to the rolls. 4 million people serve their prison time but cannot vote around the country. these people could be in power, which would give parties and political players and incentive to go after them. immigrant's right now -- there is not uniform for over registration and naturalization ceremonies, despite the fact that naturalized citizens are less likely to be registered

band of americans. that is something else we could do to empower the fort and the immigrants. in conclusion, i think there are two big questions that professor rosenblum raises that are important questions that we cannot overlook. one, what does citizens united mean in terms of democratic participation? not just the heat of the moment, but the bigger questions -- how do we include people in terms of for dissipation? the second question is rather than command and control restrictions on money, how do we offer political factors such as candidates and parties more incentives to expand their efforts beyond their base to disengage citizens? those are two very important contributions of her work. >> thank you, spencer. my deepest apologies to george

washington university law school. i did not introduce trevor before he got here. he was stopped in washington traffic. it is a good thing because you are here to make sure i got it right. founding president and general counsel of the campaign legal center and from the one of the country's best known and most experienced campaign and election lawyers. he served on the campaign commission from 1991 to 1995, a stint that included a time as fec share, and not surprisingly, he has a wonderfully subtle from a fine rain understanding of the citizens united case and its implications. did i get all that right? >> certainly not the fine grained understanding. the red light went on. thank you. this is a great discussion here e v e d me an hour and a half, right?

it really is an intellectual feast. let me just hit a couple of high points. one is that this is a good moment to be looking at this. i have a sense we will be having conversations -- "de" in a broad, general sense for the next two years -- "we" in a broad, general sense -- for the next two years. i think this will have a change in the way elections are funded. i will agree with some of the panelists that say it is not solely responsible for the change but it does reflect that. i think it is fair to predict they will be larger in the 2012 cycle, absent any significant changes in law, so we will have plenty of time to talk about how much money is spent and perhaps

where it is coming from if we can find out and what it all means for how we finance our elections. it is, i think, correct to say that we need to be forward- looking and figure out what alternative methods of getting money into the system are as the campaign finance institute is suggesting. if only because citizens united, absent further changes on the court, is absent to be -- is likely to be the law of the land, and it is inappropriate to stop talking about citizens united and begin to figure out how we deal with the new landscape. having said that, though, i do believe in history, and i believe it is important to understand what has happened in order to figure out what ought to happen next, so there are a couple of comments i would make on citizens united before we

bury it and move on to the next endeavors. one is the if you look at michael's boiling over pot image of there, i like that image. one reason i like it is that i think it accurately reflects the fact that there was pressure continuing for money to get out of the hot, but also if you are a cook at all, you know that in those situations, most of it stays under the lid. it is only some of it that actually gets out of the pot. if your looking at the numbers on those charts, i think there is a significant difference between the $200 million we were looking at $600 million this year, and if i'm right, it will be larger in 2012. he is not unimportant that the money is going up that much. -if it really does have very direct effect on our elections system and, thus, once we need

to take a look at. secondly, in terms of what the court did -- i really could spend an hour foaming at the mouth about how i think the court of the doctrine wrong in citizens united, how it did not understand corporations, etc. i will not do that, but i will comment in passing on the point, which i think is truly felt by a number of justices did he listen to the arguments. you could see cilia in his view of a corporation was not exxon and ge, but the corner barbershop and hairdresser. the idea that corporations are now ubiquitous and people do business as corporations, and they really are just assemblages of individuals. there are two problems with that, as we are going to find out. one is that individuals have a right under buckley to spend, so the quarter hairdresser and so forth could do so with their own money. they did not have to use the

corporate checkbook. second, the supreme court has dealt with the whole non-profit issue years before where they had effectively said that non- profits can spend money in elections as long as the money is not conduit from 4-profit corporations. they had dealt with what happens if he or a collection of people who happens to incorporate for a variety of purposes or because you're loyal full fiji, but your real interest is electing code-like candidates in massachusetts -- for a variety of purposes or because your lawyer told you to, but your real interest is in selecting pro-life candidates in massachusetts. if i summarize the historical record very briefly, it would be to say there are two decisions that to get it changed the landscape. not just citizens united, but

also of wisconsin right to life, and both of those are by the new activist majority on the supreme court, we knew in the mcconnell case that it was a closely divided court, and what we now know is that justice o'connor's resignation from the bench and the a rival of justice -- rrival of justivce alito leaves the court/-- closely divided but the other way. this has been closely divided all along. it was closely divided going through congress. it was upheld closely. it has now been overturned closely. i'm not convinced the debate has been decided. i do not know the next congress or the one after that are going to do or will be in the court the next couple of years, but i

think this will all be in play. one reason i think it's because the supreme court and citizens united really made a sasso judgment that there is no corruption from independent spending going back where buckley is basically talking about so low individuals acting on their own, not in concert or coordination with parties or candidates spending their own money. there is no record in citizens united, and we are creating records in the selection and the time that will come afterwards, peter's comments about what these people are looking for, how it will change the lobbying situation in washington. there was no record in citizens united, no finding by a lower court that said there was no corruption from independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions. we will find out, i think, and we may end up concluding that indeed, there is corruption when

you have an entity that exists for the sole purpose of making money, and it spends money to elect people who will then give it a competitive advantage in congress by passing laws that favor their company against others for their industry against others or blocking legislation or regulation that they do not like. we may end up concluding that we have a problem here, that congress will again want to deal with. i think everyone appreciates the irony of the case where the supreme court found corruption and in defense spending in the judicial election, opinion by justice kennedy, and coming back in citizens united, justice kennedy said that it was different. was judges, not congress. we will see where that goes. i do think, though, that if you were looking at the immediate playing field, the other area

that we're going to have to spend time on its disclosure because this is, i think, one of the untold stories of the election. everyone understands we do not have disclosure, and the article says it is a problem of the tax law and so forth. the supreme court has eight justices who think the law requires disclosure here you have before you were in the majority and if you are in the dissent. the only out liars' justice thomas, all been joined the opinion that said we have disclosure and his brethren were using it as an excuse, as a defense for their holding in citizens united. they are saying you do not need to worry about having a problem with all this new corporate and implicitly labor money because it is going to be disclosed. shareholders are going to know what they're " relations are

spending their money on, and voters are going to know who is funding these ads. the court says, as they ought to because that is important in a democracy, so they will be able to make their decisions based on sources of the money. so eight justices read the law, thinking they would have disclosure because that appeared to be what mccain-fine gold says -- mccain-feingold says. but what we have is a deregulatory group on the fec to parallel the regulatory group on the supreme court, and after the citizens united ruling, we discovered that three of the six fec commissioners believe that it does not actually required disclosure of spending by these groups for these advertisements. instead, they took a very narrow view, saying they think it only requires disclosure if somebody specifically gives money for a

specific ad and earmarks it for that ad. in my years of experience, i have never seen anybody give money for a specific ad. to start with, you do not have the had when you are soliciting money. you say, "ebit us money, we will be able to make advertising and run it to elected defeat -- if you give us money, we will be able to make advertising and run it to the electoral defeat." it fixes in congress, whether it focuses on the tax law for a broader requirement of disclosure in political spending. i think the lesson of the soft money battle, which took 10 years, probably, is that you need disclosure as a start because people need to evaluate what is happening in order to judge whether there is corruption or the appearance of corruption and if so, what to do about it.

so i think focusing on the sources of disclosure, finding out whether peter's group that has a website up there on medicare advantage, really is medical groups focus on medicare advantage, or is that actually a clever feint, and they are oil companies or some other route that want you to think it is medicare advantage. we do not know. if we can deal with the disclosure side, we will then be able to figure out what else we ought to do, which is clearly, given the landscape, going to include what other sources of funding can be made available. it is exactly 103 years since president theodore roosevelt announced that there was so much money being spent by corporate interests who have an interest in legislation that the only way to deal with this was to give both national parties a grant of public funding so that they would have a way to cover the election costs without relying

on particular interests in party with an interest in legislation. maybe 100 years later, things, run in cycles. -- things, a round in cycles. >> thank you. you have been a remarkably patient audience, but i'm sure the speakers would like to react to each other, but they can do that while they respond to your comments. we are going to bring you a microphone when you ask your questions so we capture it for our audio of this session, and we also ask that you stand, and finally, we would like to know who you are, so tell us who you are. >> are you sure we are allowed to ask? that might be constrained. >> i think it is ok. i think i have a waiver. >> i am a reporter for gannett newspapers. i just wondered why anybody would think the parties and tax

would continue if contributors could make anonymous contributions to very similar organizations. why should parties and perhaps survive this? >> do you want anybody in particular to answer that? why don't nancy and michael respond to the, since they were the most forthright defenders. >> candidates and parties have the great advantage of being able to work together openly. they are teams. in fact, that is one of the problems with the current wall, that they've made it extraordinarily difficult for the parties openly to work as teams with the candidates, and they require this subterfuge called independent spending. it is why we, together with brookings, advocated that

parties should be able to do unlimited and coordinated spending, provided it comes from small donor money and does not become a loophole around contribution limits. working as a teen, they have many incentives that relate both to government and to mobilization that simply do not apply to these outside groups. and never will. >> i think there are further answers. first of all, pax themselves made relatively few expenditures, if we are talking separate segregated funds, so corporate tax -- packs. they are often used for the purpose of making a contribution to a member so a member knows

they are given. they are given because members ask for money because members need and want campaign funds, so they go to a lobbyist for the operation and ask for help with an election, and the answer is yes, we will give you the check. i think it will be unsatisfying to all parties if they said no because they are going to make independent expenditures through some outside group. the expressive content of the contribution directly from the pack to the member is what is important in most circumstances. also, party committees as well. they need money to pay their officials and do what they do. if the rnc have more money, it would be running more advertising, but there would be pressure from the committees for funding so they could turn around and directly fund their candidates as they do.

>> i think that is a very good question, and it raises a problematic issue. to the extent that individuals and associations can spend money much more expressively, right? by paying for independent groups to attack this particular candidate or promote the candidate of this particular issue, why in the world would they be concerned about party organizations and parties? we live in an increasingly fragmented and nonpartisan political universe that to the extent that we do not have party-identified motors, or that is declining, more and more people are interested in their own causes, whether they are public interest or selfish, and are inclined to support the organization's that gear that way, so i think it really is a very serious issue, and i think that there are reasons, of course, and i tried to give some

of them, why we ought to be concerned about the strength of parties in institutions over time. do they perform functions and do things that no other political group does or can? but i think that increasingly, we lose sight of that. >> i think that question is certainly relevant with regard to people who can afford to give a $30,000 contribution to a party as opposed to a $100,000 contribution to an independent group, but it also assumes that most party funding for almost all party funding comes from such individuals, but there are a lot of average, middle-class, working class folks who give contributions to parties, to packs, to other entities, and they are important organizing tools and will continue to be in future. >> another question of here? >> thank you. i am from national right to

work, and this is an excellent conference, and i thank you for having convened it. the question i have -- it may be that might years just missed a stray comment, but there is a key aspect to the first amendment that i do not think has been addressed by anyone, and that is the right of the citizenry to information flow. it is not so much that corporations have a first amendment right to speak, but the american citizens and voters in particular have a first amendment right to the information flow, and if a corporation does speak, whether it is speaking truth, falsehood, whatever, that information is now in the public domain. candidates can address it. parties. other groups. you name it. by the way, the same right applies to labor organizations. my organization does not like compulsory union dues going into politics, but we all have the first amendment right to the information flow. >> do you want to respond to that?

whether one has to protect corporations and other organizations as part of an information flow? maybe trevor would want to respond to that. >> nothing comes to mind. >> that is in fact the argument that justice kennedy makes in his majority opinion. he does not talk about the operations are individuals and have a right to speak. if he says that the first amendment is there to protect information reaching citizens and therefore, the government should not ban people who would like to provide that information. in this case, operations and interest the labor unions. you are on good ground in that you have five justices who agree with you. the minority says, first of all, if you are going to be consistent and what you think is that the government should not ban any sources of information, then the majority is being very disingenuous in saying we're not talking about foreign nationals

and foreign governments because that is potentially part of the information flow, and why is it ok to have the information from corporations but not foreign corporations or foreign nationals for whatever? so if there is information flow and that is the value, how will you adjust it to what the majority said? which is we are not touching in this decision foreign sources of information? that is a question left to the court beyond that, but what the minority would say is information flow is fine, but if information flow turns into a form of buying members of congress through overwhelming spending to get legislation that benefits your particular interest at the expense of a broader democratic interest because others cannot compete with you, then that may not be the correct reading of the first amendment. that was the argument back and

forth in that opinion. >> michael? >> that was a good question, and i want to take into a different place. the argument that voters need information, which i thoroughly agree with, was also the reason offered by the supreme court and bubbly against paleo for disclosure. many people are putting forward the argument that i wish to free and because nobody has put it forward today, but i want to put it forward -- in connection to disclose that, that it does not matter who sponsors the speech. voters are to be able to evaluate the arguments. it is ok if you have an organization that if we stand for nothing, you ought to know about our corporation, except

the contents of our ad, and let that go. the truth is that voters, unlike the people who might be sitting here, do not spend all of their time trying to think about campaign finance law, trying to figure out if they are normal people because we actually do this. in the flood, the raj of information in the last month, it is terribly useful, very important, to have what are called shortcuts, information shortcuts, and among the most vital shortcuts, knowledge shortcuts, is that the organization stands up and says, "we are the second such organization and those who find us above a certain level are the following," and you can look it

up, and it helps you evaluate the speech, knowing who he speakers on let's the voters make guesses that are useful. while i value the argument, i think it also needs to go to another place and be applied there. >> do we have anybody on this side? you have to stand up. i have been given orders that everyone must stand. >> there has been a lot of tall about whom ordination between -- a lot of talk about coordination between the parties and candidates and about whether allowing more could perhaps diminish the role of some of these moves, these outside groups funded by anonymous contributions that cannot be traced, basically, increase the amount of regulated money with

regard to the flow of unregulated money we are seeing now, but i'm curious about the ordination between these outside groups and candidates, which is, of course, prohibited. i am wondering if the panelists -- i'm particularly curious about trevor, alison, michael, anyone else who would like to speak to it as well -- believes these groups are violating either the letter or the intent of the coordination laws that are now in place and further if they think that having stricter coordination prohibitions with perhaps more precise triggers would also disincentive vice -- disincentivise groups spending or have them be able to do less with the money. >> i think quarter nation will have real bite when you are talking maybe at the electoral

level, especially in state and local races. you are talking about less sophisticated actor, but what we are really fascinated about right now is what is going to happen 15 days from now, and the big groups that have been singled out as being successful at raising money for expenditures. we are talking about people who know how to do what they need to do within the law, so i am not concerned that karl rove's lawyer, whoever he may be, is insufficiently sensitive to the convoys of the current fec thinking on coordination, whatever that might be. they do not have to be. you cannot open a paper these days and not have some expert telling you where the marginal races are or where the dccc has

pulled out money. you do not need to talk to the dye -- the guy in a smoke-filled room to learn how to spend your money. why would you? it would be stupid. part of the picture is that the coordination standard has been a ping-pong ball between the fec and the federal district court for several years now. to the extent that it is a moving standard, there is danger there that people will guess the line is here, and it turns out that whenever enforcement's cycle settles down, the line moved. it has happened. people who paid fines for conduct they thought was perfectly legal at the time because the standard change in the course of the election or after the election. it is unfair, but there you go. if you are asking me if people in the faith are trying to

follow the law right now, i think absolutely, but that could change. >> i think this area is an area that illustrates the gap between the supreme court's view of life in reality. it is just that they assume like most people that coordination means you cannot talk to each other about any of this. so they safely say that as long as there is no coordination -- if there is for the nation, it is different. the reality is that the fec does not enforce it. i remember looking at clear quarter nation and having a number of people tell me i did not meet the standard. i'm not sure there are any cases where the fec has found a violation in the form of actual coordination. >> they cannot get a rule. >> that is a separate issue.

when congress says he cannot use your current rule because it does not touch for the nation, they did not throw it out. they write a new one. they say you still have not done it. the reality is that courts think quarter nation is important, and i think all the people in the political system have a sense that they can do an awful lot of winking and nodding without >> i do want to say something for the sake of some listeners who don't follow the technical /legal details. this will not be responsive to the question necessarily. the reason this is an issue is that the law, quite reasonably says that if two people court made, that counts as a contribution.

unless you work together on is this a better communication nation -- got or communication, that doesn't count as coordination. i am not a lawyer. it is important only because if there are no operating, coordinating roles, you have sort of something like a limited contribution. >> i am with the center for public integrity. particularly in response to chairman potter's comments , president obama has made one nomination to the federal election committee which language congress for one year and he withdrew his name. why hasn't the administration made fec reformate priority it disclosure can be something date -- a deal with? >> it is a long time since i was

chairman potter and if i knew the answer to that question, i could make a lot money with my crystal ball. it beats me. this is an administration that came in saying campaign finance reform was important and they would have legislative initiatives in this area. i understand they have that legislative initiatives end of the prairies but that does not explain the appointment process. what i am told strait of is that they don't want to do anything that would offend the republican leader in the senate so they have asked if he would give them names and he has not done so. they have been honorable to move and if they don't have been a republican names, they cannot have democratic names. that does not illustrate a high priority. again, i can't figure out why it is not a priority. if someone else on the panel can shed light on that, i would be thrilled. >> i am not speaking for the

administration when i say this -- i think there is a problem in the senate. the problem in the senate, we don't -- don't just sit with the fec appointees, we see it across the board, that senators put holds on candidates. it is a problem in terms of the senate. the administration has done a number of things in terms of appointments and nominations and candidates are held up. they language. they go to the senate to be slowed down. one important thing here is that there are some issues in terms of the senate right now in terms of both the filibuster and cloture procedure. i would also make the point that the president has been a strong

proponent of the disclose accurate he has dedicated several saturday radio addresses to the problems with secret, unlimited spending by corporations and individuals and contributions to these independent groups. i think there has been a real commitment with regard to good government, lobbyists, disclosure, a variety of issues that have been unfortunately blocked in the senate. >> on page -- on the disclosure issue, isn't there a tension in the citizens united decision itself saying on the one hand up that it doesn't matter that there should not be limits on

one hand. it is something people should be exposed to and listen to and make their evaluation as opposed to saying in that same decision that it does matter who is speaking and we should know who is funding these messages. it is important for the voters to be avail -- to be able to evaluate that. i'm not sure if these things are in tension in the same decision. >> i think it gets back to disclosure of what. you can think of two extremes, neither of which probably serve any governmental purpose. you can think of an extreme where an entity, if it wants to make one independent expenditure, has to disclose all sources of revenue. and abuses of revenue. you would get reams and reams of the information. i am not exactly sure where the governmental interest is there.

i can see burdens on free speech and free association when you have a role like that because you would be required to have disclosure of activity that has nothing to do with one independent expenditure. and then i can see a rule on the other extreme where as only people involved in the crafting of the ad who are sources of revenue are required to be disclosed and you would have essentially whomever it was who crafted the ad. i just pulled his name out of the air and i am not saying anything about him. neither of those will serve a satisfied public service. there has to be something in between there. the disclose active way of getting around this is that if you are a source of revenue, we will look back at the year previous to the year of the ad and by the way, if you are a

source of money and to specify that you are not giving for political expenditures, you don't have to be disclosed. this puts the responsibility on the donor and i am not sure how that all fits together when you look at the time profile. i am also not sure it is appropriate for the government to place that the onus on aid donor. not that the chamber of commerce donors would not be sophisticated enough to comply with this. part of the debate we have is thinking that every organization is the chamber or every organization is america's future prosperity and good government, inc. or what ever and start thinking more broadly about where the rubber hits the road which is the group's not as well advised by the $600 per hour lawyers in washington, d.c. and the ones that get wrapped up in the enforcement activities of

the federal election committee. one of the reasons we like to talk about these things is that it eludes people's perceptions when they talk in general terms about what kind of disclosure is perfect. >> i did not see the tension you describe between those two. what the court said was that it is a good thing to have speech and it is not the government's role to dictate where that speech comes from. that is the first amendment element of it. but, it says, it is entirely appropriate for boaters, citizens, and indeed shareholders of corporate funders to know where the speech is coming from and who is funding it. i don't see those in conflict to say that it is a good thing to have speech whenever someone wants to speak but they should tell people who they are as to the details, it seems to me that

what you are saying to the people running the ads is that you have to tell people the source of the money. if you want to have a separate accounts of that the source of the money is clean and simple and only people who contribute to that account have their money used for the ad, fine. if you want to use it out of your general treasury funds, you have to disclose something about your general treasury funds whether it is your top donors or what ever. so that people have a sense of that you know how the ad got funded and where the money came from. >> two obvious things and i'm certainly a supporter of any kind of disclosure. there is the question of the threshold and the level. how small the as a donor have to disclose were not disclosed. that is a serious issue for people. the second issue is that disclosure by itself is hardly

transformative. the names of donors or corporations will not tell us very much. the question will be who will interpret it for us. the other thing i would predict is that we would have a new interpreted industry. it would begin with politico and moving on because the spin you put on that for whatever audiences what has impact with it. >> we were chatting a little bit before the session about whether the limits on disclosure, in particular these 501c groups and how they affect your investigative reporting to follow the money in campaigns. >> that is a big deal. three years ago, npr and the center for investigative reporting ran the secret money

project where we try to track all the outside money groups that were turning up in the presidential election year. we found a lot that were playing at the presidential level and many were involved in senate and house campaigns. american future fund surfaced that year, i think. we look at these groups and for the 501c's, we got a general sense of where they were at but we had trouble getting a really good fix on why they were doing what they did. as the money moves from a 527's and maybe from the party committees into the c4's, it

makes it that much harder. i am sort of at a loss here. journalism is about bringing a light to in this case the money in the political system. they are moving away from places where we can shine a light. >> one of the things that surprises me about the discussion is we have lost the point that was made earlier about political mobilization. it was made in discussion of parties and the discussion of any quality -- of inequality in politics. the fact of the matter is that if we don't pay some attention to questions of political alienation, if we don't pay attention to the relationship between all the technical issues, disclosure, the legal issues, the issues of spending,

where money is spent and who spends money, if we don't pay attention to the relationship between that and political mobilization, it seems to me that what we are talking about is a kind of politics at the margins. big money came into elections not to mobilize people. big money came into elections to de-mobilize people. people have been using big money for years to fight over voters at the margins. the brilliance of the obama campaign as far as i was concerned and for anybody who uses money in this way was that they linked raising money -- it was not merely that they raised money from small donors, it was that they linked raising money to do old-fashioned grass-roots elections. they had brilliance in the way they thought about organizing using old-fashioned shoe leather

and attaching it to very high- tech kinds of electoral strategy started the problem that nancy races is the problem of party. some of the organizers from the obama campaign came out to oregon. one thing that was incredibly interesting to me was listening to them talk about very innovative organization. that innovative organization was effervescence. it had no links to the party at all. none at all. we can debate the technicalities here, but if we don't continually pushed back and ask ourselves what the relationship is between all these questions and of butter -- simple voter interest. maybe disclosure is bad. the disclosure is bad because it makes of voters cynical.

maybe that is a bad thing. at least i think those questions are also really worth keeping on the table. they were put on the table, i just wanted to put them back on the table. >> i just want to ask a slightly different kind of question. allison raise the point earlier that i have always found interesting which is the equivalent of the corporation and the union in these ways of -- in these cases. u.s. whether that made sense. -- you asked whether that made sense. >> in the electoral law, i don't know. earlier on, there were these battles to incorporate unions and gained the same rights. that corporations have.

d. it seems to me that you are talking about such different entities. when you're talking about how many organizations do we have in american society as weak as unions are that genuinely link voters with weakened parties. i don't know that we have been a commercial -- organizations that link average folks to the electoral and political system anymore. it strikes me that unions are one of those things that do, right? it is not surprising to me that seiu which has been so aggressive in organizing poor immigrant workers, for example, in los angeles and linking their strategies very much to politics, to california politics, to county politics,

and to city politics. it is not surprising to me that that is the wing of the labor movement that is so concerned about this. that is the wing of the labor movement that has been concerned about mobilization of new people into civil society coming into the system organizations whether they are organized as corporations or not. that is the people who have been interested in organizing new people especially immigrants into politics. >> i wanted to expand on the original point that jerry made about mobilization. i want to take this outside the electoral context. there's big money outside of elections. if you think of lobbying or if you think of corporate speech, every time a major piece of legislation comes up around health care for example, it is clear that you need political

mobilization to resist the best. quite apart from small donations during campaigns, you need parties and party identifications and one thing that obama tried to do and we don't know whether it was successful or not was to take this organizing for america, this apparatus that was built during a presidential campaign and try to use it in the course of governing to provide a grass- roots mobilization in support of certain kinds of legislation. it has been stunning but i don't know that we know conclusively whether it has been successful or not. it is an example of this need for political participation and to look at money quite apart from elections. elections is not the whole story. >> i have studied that in great detail and i don't know. [laughter] i have done a lot of stuff that has not come to light. it would be interesting to study more. >> the equivalency of

corporations and unions baked -- dates back to 1947 and the republican congress. they took over and said their view of the world was accurate in 1947. you had two roughly equal great economic forces. you had the business community and the unions. you had unions in that. capable of shutting down entire industries and virtually the country. you had very high rates of union membership compared to now. the republican congress said we have a ban on corporate spending and we should have a ban on labor unions spending. we will treat them the same barry jumped 4 to the 1970's and the water reforms, congress took that structure and created in the election law, rules for corporations and rules for unions and the fec has enforce that ever since. the world has changed in terms of economic forces but also it is not clear that anybody thought about it from a

constitutional perspective. the supreme court has never thought about from a constitutional perspective. they have never said that unions are voluntary associations accept when they are not voluntary. corporations are a totally different animal and why are these being treated under the same prohibition. the court has never asked that question ver. everyone knows the court said that the labor unions have a constitutional right to make independent expenditures. they never said that at citizens united. the fec has announced that "read it that way but the court never used the word letter unions. >> we of time for a couple more questions, yes? >> has ms.hayward noted earlier, these issues were acceptable before citizens united.

spending has increased dramatically even since then especially among the chamber of commerce as 501c's. do you think sufficient attention is being paid to groups spending on those and the reasons for spending on those instead of independent expenditures? >> you mentioned my name. i will start anyway. there is a couple of material reasons why you would from a legal standpoint. as long as you are still engaged in issue advocacy, you are not making the expenditure that might trigger political committee status. certainly, there is a space out there for groups that want to change the world. they are less direct. the argument goes back and forth especially that there is no

distinctive difference between the communication a person gets credi. it is difficult to believe that the ad that says so and so does not support your view of social security, tell them to change their view is materially the same as don't the x. i just have a problem. it is an advertised on tv, after all. the more specific and ed is, the easier time it has cutting through the noise of whatever else -- whatever else is going on in the room. that is just my anecdotal impression and i could be wrong. issue advocacy still has a place as a legal matter. organizations that are concerned about having been formed to used 5014c structure to change the world, not wanting to trigger political committee status when you're per book --

spills of a purpose is party issues and not advocacy, want to continue to use those. the prevalent lot right now is that it is the fiscal year a c4 you look at not just a month to determine whether the principal purpose line has been crossed. that would certainly be after the election i assume, there would be a great interest in issue advocacy and do we believe in santa claus. i know -- i think i know what it will be because there will be a lame duck session. >> i was vigorously shaking my head only to the product of the question which was up -- which was -- which was before the citizens united decision. it was on regulated on mccain- feingold.

they said you cannot use corporate money in the middle of an election. then they came in and said you could do whatever you want as long as you don't to the functional equivalent of express advocacy. i wanted to pin the tail on the documents say though it was the supreme court that gave us this on limited advertising issue. we are seeing it this year because humans are slow to change and to fully appreciate the change took legal environment we have now, i will bet that you will see less issue advertising in the next cycle and more direct advertising particularly because the fec late in the game came out with supr-pax giving them ways to do it. there are complicated tax questions the i'm desperate if you're someone who wanted to fund advertising without disclosing it to you were, you or c in the3, c4, c6, world and

there might be issues for advertising. >> why run ads that get you into the world of disclosure when you don't have to? c as a4, as a c4, you can run ads that ripped the opposing candidate apart, even a separate him just the way you would in express advocacy but without the express advocacy tagline at the end. you can say to call a d judgeoakes from the time left washington -- now you can say that. ok, ok. we will talk about this later [laughter]

. that might be a good line. after the election, given the way things are going -- there was unrelenting intensity of the political/legislative process, these groups can swing into doing ads on issues in which you camelot's personal attacks on the members of congress -- you can't launch personal attacks on the members of congress the way they will vote on this thing. there is not that much difference so why get into disclosure when you don't have to? >> we have time for one more question. yes, yes, sir. >> if i can get a second bite.

correct me if i am wrong but i don't think the citizens united case rendered and a kind of decision with respect to disclosure. i don't think citizens united contested the disclosure provisions that it would apply if they lost on the other issues. there were site comments that might give us some insight into what the court might do in the future but lawyers and judges called dictum. when we talk about disclosure in the larger sense, we need to keep in mind the historical underpinnings of it going back to the naacp vs. alabama case where state governments were trying to smoke out membership lists of the naacp to put a decisive end to the wreck -- civil rights movement in the early days. today, we have referendum groups that are under attack in the

same way. something the general public may not know it all is that there are some people who do not have to disclose their donors to thefec on the record. we need to keep those principles in mind as well. >> trevor and allison, do you want to comment whether the decisive?s >> it said what it said. i think it is pretty clear that they are rolling with the rest of the lord dening stable. certainly, disclosure has to be tailored to a specific government interest and should not burden the rights of people to participate in politics. >> in all due deference, i don't

read the case the way you do. is dictum.nk di it isctunit the court said they are not prohibited from spending and we will strike down the corporate -- prohibition of corporate funding. they turned to disclosure and said however you are still required to disclose the sources of funding under the act. they say we are told that section of the act and it applies to you and it doesn't apply just to express advocacy but applies to talking about candidates. i think that was a very square holding of the court in the decision. as allison says, clearly someone will come back and say they are different and make another argument. >> i am incredibly grateful to our panel for a great discussion. i am grateful to our patient audience and for your good

questions and comments. join me in thanking our panelists, [applause] ] >> we thank our hosts very much. thank you both for putting this together. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[no audio]

[general chatter] [ambient sound] >> look king and political news, in the race for your governor, new york attorney general andrew cuomo is up 35 points over real estate developer carl paladino. the two candidates who are looking to be the governor will meet in a debate tonight at hofstra university on long island. midterm elections are about two weeks away and each night here on c-span, we are showing you debates from key races are run the country. here's a look at our lineup tonight. lighted o'clock, we'll show you the west virginia senate debate

-- live at 8:00, we will show you the west virginia senate debate and one hour later, the first of three races from wisconsin and illinois after that. a quick reminder that we have dozens of debates available for you to watch any time on line. there are also political ads and speeches and campaign rallies as well as links to other related web pages at c-span.org/ politics. this week on the communicators, microsoft daniel reed on the interaction of computers and his role with software tonight on c- span 2. >> it is time to get your camera rolling for this year's forcam, the video documentary campus -- competition. make a five-eight minute video on washington through your lens. let us know about a topic that

helps to understand the role of the government in your life or community. include one more point of view including your own in addition to cspan programming. you could win a grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 and total prices. the competition is open to middle and high school student'' grades 6-12. for details go to studentscam.org. >> following last night's kentucky senate debate, rand paul refused to shake his opponent's hand at the close of the debate. he said today he might skip the next debate entirely which is set for october 25. this is after questions raised formermr. paul's membership in a group that had disparaging remarks about christianity. >> this is from the university

of louisville. this is the kentucky senate debate. i will be moderating this debate and we have four reporters asking questions of the candidates. the reporters will ask questions of the two candidates. we have a live audience. they have asked -- they have been asked to refrain from applause. the moderator as a little bit of

leeway so if they don't answer the questions to satisfaction, they can ask a follow-up. if they believe there upon as something about them the need to respond to, i will give them leeway on that, too. jack conway has elected to go first. rand paul had the second option and has chosen to go last in the closing. you each have 90 seconds for your opening statements. >> thank you, mark, and thank you to the university of louisville. elections are about choices. this one is a choice between right and wrong. as your attorney general, i have taken on the issue of drugs and crime. rand paul says drugs are not a pressing issue. he is wrong. as your attorney general, i have looked out for seniors when people take advantage of them. rand paul has said that seniors need a $2,000 deductible for medicare. he is wrong. i have taken on the promise of a

book, is when the light was about the price of drugs and took on big oil companies when they get desperate rand paul would not let the government hold them accountable at all. he said going after bp is on american and he is wrong. what worries me the most is that rand paul says we have not follow the constitution since 1937. 1937 was not picked randomly. that is the year that the supreme court of the allied states up all the constitutionality of social security. in addition to that, rand paul would question the constitutionality of minimum wage laws, federal law enforcement, college loans, worker safety protection. rand paul would on do the basic protections we have since the 1930's. academy to stand up for you and for kentucky and sprit i humbly ask for your vote on november 2. >> people ask me if i have

enjoyed running for public of the but most days i would say yes and it has turned ugly. most of you know me as a pro- life christian. i won't apologize for that. i've never written or said anything to written to indicate otherwise. i am disheartened that my opponent has chosen to attack my religious beliefs. we had serious problems in our country. we have to have a serious discussion. he has descended into the gutter to attack my christian beliefs. i believe that those who choose the politics of personal destruction disqualify themselves from consideration. i believe that those is due to the level of attacking a men's religious beliefs to gain higher office, i believe that they should remember that it does not profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul in the process. if you wish to be considered for higher office, if you wish to enter into the debate, step up

and cast aside these attacks on my personal religion. jack, you should be ashamed of yourself. you should apologize. have you no decency? have you no shame? >> may i address that? >> no, we will move on. [laughter] you'll get your chance of a second. the moderator will be asking questions that have been submitted by whas-tv the oars and the folks in the room. the first question will go to jack conway. argue in favor or opposed to the supreme court decision that allows unlimited corporate dollars in the election process and why you hold that position? . >> i am opposed to that decision. i have to answer the charges that rand paul made. values matter and rand paul has

two questions to answer tonight. the president of baylor university bend a group because they were making fun of christianne -- of christianity. why did he freely join a group known for mocking are making fun of people of faith? secondly, when is it ever a good idea to tie up a woman asked her to kneel before a false idol? those are two fundamental questions i hope we get an answer tonight. to your question, i oppose it because if we don't do something about citizens united, the politicians will look like nascar. there is undisclosed special interest money attacking me now need to look at this issue of how a corporation can speak and we have to make sure special interests can buy off politicians. >> 60 seconds, mr. paul. >> favre the moat.

you can tell you are lying bike when your lips are moving. you are accusing me of crimes. you know nothing about the process. you are accusing a a crime from 30 years ago from some anonymous source. how ridiculous are you? you embarrass this race. you will accuse me of a crime from 30 years ago? you really have no shame, have you? do you want to discuss the issues of the day? discuss your support for obamacare but let's not let this degenerated to calling me names and accusing me of crimes from 30 years ago from anonymous sources. really, have you no shame? >> 15 seconds to respond [laughter] >> he still has that after the two fundamental questions. why did he join that group? he joined it because they reveled in sacrilege and values

matter. when is it ever appropriate to tie up the women and asked her to kneel before a false gods? >> have you respond to a guy who will "somebody anonymously from 30 years ago which is untrue? you out and out live because you have nothing to stand on. run a race as a man. stand up and be a man instead of just calling me names them of cash. we will move on very >> dr. paul kentucky is on to gm, ford and others. you agreed with the statement that the country would be in better shape if gm would have been allowed to fail rather than be bailed out. if the general motors failure threaten the other auto makers of kentucky, ford and toyota because they share suppliers, would you still be in favor of letting gm failed and the effect

would have on the other automakers? >> i would characterize it differently. i would say that nobody wants gm to fail and nobody wants for to fill or any business to fail. i am not in favor of any business is failing. i would say that when the economics of it show that you are going bankrupt that there is something to be said for organized bankruptcy. what president obama did in this was that he stole money from the indiana teachers' pension and gave it to the union workers. the teachers' pension was it -- was a preferred bondholder. by the government coming in and overtaking this process and having a bankruptcy that was outside the normal bankruptcy rules, they took money from people who were owed money. bankruptcy also causes efficiencies to a corporat.

>> i would not say the automaker is suffer in bankruptcy. i have a plan for jobs in the future and my opponent does not. my opponent says we will need to have our people get jobs with lower wages and they need a tough law. that is not a jobs plan. go to my web site and look at our home town tax credit. that will create 11,000 jobs in the commonwealth of kentucky. >> question for mr.,? >> and general conway, part of being the attorney general is to intervene on the part of kentucky citizens when the energy companies raise rates per you also accepted contributions from people tied to these same

utilities. ethics branch commission cleared to of charges but some say politically it was not good to do this and it does not pass the smell test. how can voters be sure you will represent them instead of utilities? >> since i have become attorney general, i have saved the payers of this day well over $100 million and oppose the recent increases. i have stood up for the rate payers of kentucky and i have opposed cap and trade. it is now dead in the united states congress. when the administration went forward, i stepped up and filed a lawsuit against the epa to make sure they would not do that. the ethics commission did take a look at this issue. they dismissed it. these have been charges that have been brought back up by karl rove and undisclosed money

coming in from out of state pursuant to the citizens united decision to attack my character. whether i am taking on the pharmaceutical companies or taking on the energy companies, i have an outstanding record as attorney general and i am very proud of it. >> actually, it was the lieutenant governor who brought these charges, your fellow democrat. he was not cleared of the charges but they said they did not have jurisdiction on the charges. it is a clear conflict of interest to take this money while deciding cases. it is important and something that should be brought up. i think he has not completely exploiting themselves on this. >>dr paul, your supporters gravitated to you because you received as a straight shooter and not a typical politician but to have been accused during this campaign of backtracking from comments he made about kentucky's drug problem to the

national sales tax to a medicare deductible. what do you say to those who say you have changed to get elected? >> don't believe everything you read a newspaper. [laughter] a lot of my positions have been characterized by those who oppose me and two of the main newspapers in the states a ticket with a grain of salt. i have not changed any positions. i believe the bank bailout was a mistake. i think our problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. i have said repeatedly that i favored many different tax reforms that would simplify the tax code as long as they lower the rate on everyone. i have also said that the party needs to be given to balancing the budget. it is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. i don't think we have changed on any of this. my position of drugs was mischaracterized from the beginning. i said or drug funding came from was not a pressing issue by never said drugs are not a

pressing issue. i'm a father of three teenage boys and i am concerned with drugs. i have gone around the state and talk to sheriff's about it and visited a drug rehab programs. >> as best i can tell, rand paul has backtracked on his position on civil rights, the sales tax and whether it is his stance on safety laws, the deductible for medicare and whether drugs are a pressing issue and 234 dead agricultural recipients that he made up. you don't have the guts to stand by your position. once you put them out there and you cannot sell them and get elected on them, you step back from them. you tell me to stand up and be a man. stand up for your position. >> question for mr. conway? >> if elected, what's this of the we will you do in your first 100 days in office to jump-start

the economy by creating jobs in kentucky? >> jobs are the number one issue and the commonwealth right now. we are at 10% unemployment families are being ripped apart parents are afraid they cannot educate their kids. when my opponent says that sometimes workers need to take lower wages and have a tough love, that is not a jobs plan. i have a jobs plan. go to our website. $30 billion and for small and medium-sized businesses that create jobs, they can take a 20% tax cut. that would create about 11,000 jobs in the state of kentucky. i want to get the small and community banks lending again to small and medium-sized businesses. george w. bush and mr. mccammon -- mitch mcconnell bell about some huge bags. they came down hard and our community banks.

finally, we need a top to bottom review of our trade deals because we have lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs in the state. >> the government does not create jobs, individual entrepreneur is, men and women create jobs. the loss to understand that, you cannot debate this. let's keep more money in kentucky. let's send less money to washington for the next thing you need to do is have less regulation. regulations cost business $1 trillion. we cannot compete overseas because we over-regulate, overtax, overburden. president obama and his cronies are adding more regulation and that is what we need to change. >> the backs question comes in a student who says what are your plans to improve the quality of higher education in kentucky? >> the way we improve overall education in kentucky is we need more control of education in kentucky. one of the banks that when you

talk to school superintendents or you talk to presidents of colleges, they will tell you there are so many roles out of washington that they can make decisions in the state about how to make education better. sometimes it is different from university to university. i want to allow more autonomy as well as all the way down the ladder when we talk about secondary education and primary education. let's have more the decisionmaking process here in this state and less mandates that are underfunded coming from the federal government. >> as you know, this is an issue i know well. i worked on higher education reform when i work with the governor's office in frankfurt. rand paul did not say he is for eliminating the department of education. there are many students in the room tonight who are on pell grants. what will they do? i want to keep students in

school longer. the new bill that was passed that allows students to get laws directly from the federal government can't repay it more slowly over time with a small percentage of their wages will work. that will keep students from having to drop out of college because they can afford to pay for college. we should be doing more of that doing away with the department of education may sound easy but it will have a really bad result. we need to stand up for our education and get people into the community schools and into a of higher education and we need to keep them there. >> question for mr. conway? >> right out of the gate, you brought up the commercial you approved that questions the fate of dr. paul. the announcer in that commercial asks why. are you alleging that dr. paul is not a good christian? >> that is not the issue the issue of the ad [boos]

the issue is why did ran paul knowing that the president of baylor university band this group because of sacrilege and because they made fun of christianity and crisis, why did he knowingly join a group that was known for mocking people of faith? secondly, when is it ever appropriate to type a woman -- to tie up a woman and neal before a false idol that you refer to as aqua buddha? if you look at his history, it has been talked about him writing in his student paper about when art two people equal. he should ask if we should have protections for women. these have popped up as his positions this summer and this fall. there is a direct line between what he was writing about in college and the positions he has taken now. >> let me get this straight --

jack wants to know when i quit beating my wife. [laughter] you have accused me of these crimes and why did you commit these crimes that you just completely have made up? do you know nothing about the process of accusation? do you know nothing about the facts of when you attack someone's character? you don't just make up stuff and attack someone's character. you really should be ashamed of yourself. run on issues of the day but don't make up stuff about me from college that you think you have read and the internet. grow up. >> i want to respond. it was not an internet. it was on cbs news. it was on a politico. [crowd noise] the woman who you tide of talked about it again -- who you tied up said it was weird and i don't

think everyone should ever tie up a woman and ask her to mill before a false idol. >> i give up. how'd you argue with someone who has no logic and makes no logical sense? he makes up sauce stopped to accuse me of from 30 years ago in college? this is absolutely absurd. to even have a conversation with you. you demean the state of kentucky very you embarrass yourself. to bring a stop in 30 years ago that is on true, unsubstantiated that you read on blog. [applause] >> no applause, thank you folks. we told you before then, no applause during these debates. >> my question, do you think he is a good crack -- good christian? conclusion.ave a

i know that his wife is the deacon in their church and i don't think that is the issue. the issue is that why did he join a group, that was known for -- did do not join a group that was known for mocking face? >> how could you respond to anonymous accusations from a guy wants to make up stuff about me in college? let's have a debate tonight about the national issues. you want to go back and discuss with your high-school buddies what went on in college, you do it. let's have a debate about obamacare. do you support your president? is all you can to make up accusations about me in college? that shows a dearth of knowledge and a dearth of positions that disqualifies you from all the office. >>dr. paul, in the past three

debates, general, says he does not believe you think social security is constitutional. i will give you a chance to read to the question, do you believe it is? >> i have never said it is not constitutional. i have questioned the constitutionality of obamacare and so have 17 attorneys general. 70% of kentucky believes we should challenge the constitutionality of obamacare. the attorney general will not sign onto that. i was there in the capitol with three other people to ask him to sign onto tallis the constitutionality of obamacare. this is a pressing issue of the dead. this would get us into a discussion of the issues here. jack misunderstands the constitution. he thinks it has to list a right for you not to have insurance. he does not understand that the constitution gives certain powers to the government but it says those rights not listed are

not to be disparaged for the right -- the ninth and 10th amendment are very clear. he needs to join the lawsuit against a bombcare and do the will of all -- of the people. >> i am always amused to get a lecture in constitutional law from a certified ophthalmologist. [applause] i am not going to waste the resources of the taxpayers of kentucky playing tea party politics. if you were to go back and follow these lawsuits, you are challenging well-settled law that says the social security and medicare is constitutional. if you listen to that answer carefully, he does not say that he does not think so security is constitutional. >> yes or no, is a constitutional or not? >> i have not challenged it.

yes, it has been decided. it is hard to argue with him because he makes up my position and then i have to go and had and have a debate with a made up position. his ads are false. how the debate with a guy who makes up all your positions? it is very difficult. >> i am not making this up. there are e-mails between doing campaign managers and press releases. talk about your false ads, the ad that your group is running against me is decidedly false. once again, when you debates rand paul he has brought up dates in the 1930's. he has been cleared his position. >> 1 newspaper in doors today

and it said you have built a commendable record of public service. there is a mood in this country that many are ready to turn away from those with track records in government and politics. your response to that? >> i have not been in washington. i've been the attorney general in kentucky for the last few years. i have taken on the old company's -- the oil companies. he may talk about balancing the budget, but you weren't looking at it as the irresponsible democrat. i cut 30% in spending from the office of the attorney general. i have taken 86,000 child pornography images of the internet. we went after the pharmaceutical companies because i believe in accountability. because i understand that drugs are pressing issue i credit the

state's first prescription health task force. i worked on this issue in eastern kentucky. of these prosecutions are over 300%. i think that is a record of treating a public office like a public trust. >> i think that is and will be the year of the outsider. people are ready for some non- career politicians. people are ready for term limits. people are ready for a balanced budget. there are people who do not see their future or see things in terms of having a career and staying there forever. they say that we have serious problems in our country with a $2 trillion deficit. people are worried about our country and they want to send someone up there who is not part of the system. >> question for rand paul? >> should employers be held accountable for highly illegal

immigrants? why or why not? >> yes. we need security along the southern border. we have not been done a good job, republican or democrat. we need security. many, like my opponent, want amnesty and security. we tried that in the past. it does not happen. i think this is a real national security problem to have an open border. i agree with milton friedman who said you cannot have open borders in a welfare state. the federal government does not step in and out. he opposes the arizona law. i am for the arizona law. states will have to do something because they are the ones spending money on education and health benefits for those breaking the law. you cannot allow these people to come in the country by the millions in favor for legal

immigration, but that is the way it needs to be. >> i am not for amnesty. i am not for his plan he came out this summer where he wants to electrify the entire southern border of the united states of america and build an underground electric fence. that does not seem workable to me. we advised law enforcement agencies about immigration and customs enforcement holds. there are not enough agents. the of the the abrogated their responsibility. i want a system that is toff, sensible, an affair. >> do you favor a temporary guest worker program? >> yes, i do. a temporary worker program would be a good program and should be done legally and documented. when you speak to those in the farming community, they will say they do need migrant workers to work on the farms. >> at the gates every worker program, if done properly and

with a system that is sensible and fair, does make sense. i support trying to streamline the department of our culture program to get the temporary workers to the farms were the canid do the work that is desperately needed. in instances like that where it is provincial work. >> there is much controversy on both sides of the fence about the current health care reform bill. we do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. what specifically would you keep? what would you do away with the? what would you replace those portions with? jack conway docks -- jack conway? >> a $2,000 deductible for medicare is not the answer. rand paul says he wants a deductible. our seniors cannot afford it. taking breast cancer research? the local level is not the answer.

she jumped on a conference call to tell everyone how upset she was. we need to fix the health care law. he wants to appeal it. i have a friend who had a kidney transplant. he told me on numerous occasions how hard it is to get coverage because he has a pre-existing condition. we have 19,000 kids in this state who can be kept on their plan -- their parents' plan longer. we need to step up in medicare and allow medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices which would save a $200 billion. we need someone with a track record of taking on the pharmaceutical companies. >> 60 seconds. >> the wins in the wrong direction. i would get rid of the individual mandates. i would get rid of the fine and the 1099 provision. we have spoken a lot about the deductible, or someone did, but obamacare did raise the deductible on those on medicare. in the future we might have to

and jack is already in favor of raising the deductible and so is president obama. medicare vantage already have the people paying nearly $1,000 more in out-of-pocket costs and deductibles will rise under obamacare. do not be fooled. >> the reviewer asked what specifically would you do away with that? answer that and then you can respond. >> the argument to get himself out from these seven times he has said he was for the $2,000 deductible, he came up with the argument that the deductible has already been raised. that has been debunked. i would do away with the special interest permission where medicare cannot negotiate for lower drug prices. we ought to let medicare be able

to negotiate like the v.a. does. >> i also read him all the time. he quotes richard foster, deductibles will go up. you are absolutely incorrect. >> kentucky is a net importer of federal dollars. you want less money spent and filtered through washington. let's say you win and you convince everyone in the senate. as the net result for kentucky going to be a lesser percentage of the federal pie? >> if you take out the active military salaries and what we give to our bases, our numbers

are disproportionately high because of having two military bases. i do not think we get more than we send it to washington. it is a net loser for us. we have a $2 trillion deficit. we need to figure out how to fix it. that will require cuts across the board. you have to look at every program in trying to balance this. the soldier should be taken out of the equation. >> rand paul qaeda for a 23% national sales tax on top of our regular sales tax. he wants to do with the 16th amendment and put in the 23% sales tax. when a good buy groceries, medicines, supplies, you will pay a 20% sales tax. it will come down disproportionately hard on our seniors that would also get his $2,000 medicare deductible. they simply cannot afford this

plan. >> i have said repeatedly that we ever spending problem, not a revenue problem. we need to cut spending before we do anything with taxes. we do need to simplify the tax code. it is 16,000 pages long. we need to simplify that. i do support many different approaches to reform the tax code as long as it reduces the overall burden for all taxpayers. >> 15 seconds to like to respond. >> he said he was for this again. the bottom line is a 23% national sales tax really hurt our seniors in addition to the taxes. >> some 1300 americans died in afghanistan over the past few years on the ground. conditions seem to be, at

times, deteriorated. do you believe this is a winnable war? how would you define it being one of all blacks under what circumstances should we leave? >> a very good question. our men and women in uniform are serving so bravely over there. i think it was the right thing to go in candid displace the terrorists. i am an independent minded democrats. i question the surge in afghanistan. i'm sick of hearing the politicians. on the would -- bang on the wood saying we need to win the war. winning would be having a country that does not harbor terrorists. i didn't hear enough about pakistan. we need a regional solution. the issue of nuclear power

version is why i'm worried. he said it is not a -- nuclear proliferation is why i am worried. >> and double the most important vote is to go door. we should go reluctantly and we should declare war as the constitution intended. we have not done that and we have not been unified as a nation. i would have voted to declare war on afghanistan. i think we need to begin asking questions about when we can come home, when can the afghans step up to control the streets in their country? >> do you believe it is a winnable war? if so, how do we get out? >> reddick we can meet the two criteria, leaving the country more stable than we found it and

one that does not harbor terrorists that brazil will. we need an international strategy. this solution will be a political one for countries like pakistan, china, and others stepped up with our partners in nato and the u.n. to have an international solution that will allow us to get out. >> i like to see our troops starting to come home next year. >> i think we are very good at fighting wars but we are not good at nation-building. i think we need to ask the questions about that. we need to have a debate about when we should come home. ultimately, the commander in chief makes those decisions. i think it would be unconstitutional for congress to say we need 100,000 troops here or there.

>> a question for dr. paul? >> you have expressed local first when it comes to tax dollars. considering the corruption and has been rampant in parts of eastern kentucky, do you believe sending massive amounts of federal dollars without control is the bass -- best way to attack these days struggled that's >> this debate has been mistaken from the very beginning. there is a continuum between federal funding and local and state funding. the drop to a sheriff in in the county and ask what percentage is state and local? it is well over 90% in every community. it is funny we are having this debate and promoting dramatic change in what we do. the vast majority of the funding is state and local. >> i do not know what kentucky he is looking at.

hal rogers said he was very disappointed in his stance when it came to funding operation unite. it is not 90% federally funded. congressman whitfield has brought funding home for it and it is not locally funded. the sheriff's i have met with in central kentucky that they would want one or two full-time drug administrators under your plan, because drugs are a big problem. >> they are 100% federally funded. if you add up the money, it is less than 10%. the sheriff's office collects the vast majority of the money and a very small percent is a federal. i want more autonomy with the local sheriff's and more autonomy for the local drug

courts. i do not think we should lock up a teenager for 10 years. we need to have a more reasonable approach to the drug problem. >> this is an issue that i and stand -- where i understand. as the attorney general, i have travelled around and i have had parents cry on my shoulder because their children have overdosed on painkillers. for you to say that drugs are not a big issue and that you would not seek federal assistance is the callous. it is problematic considering the partnership we have with local governments and the federal government. this is an all hands on deck discussion. >> as to ways to attack the deficits, you can cut programs or raise taxes. as far as kentucky is concerned, what is your view on downgrading fort knox and fort campbell?

>> i am not for that. i was at fort knox the other day. there is incredible investment and the people in and around fort knox. i am a fiscally responsible democrat. we're trying to figure out how to -- cut about $500 billion. there is $100 billion in medicare fraud that we would get if we had medicare fraud units in every state. if we could shut down the offshore of tax havens and tax loopholes. there is about $130 billion in savings. we also need the pay-as-you-go system that president clinton put in place.

>> dr. paul? >> i do not want to cut costs for fort knox or fort campbell. they're both right in the top 20 basis -- and bases. we have a good chance that they will stay in kentucky. we have a spending problem. you will need some serious people to go up there and look at every program across the board and see if we can downsize and, privatize some programs. we have to be serious and will take serious people. >> where do you stand on the location of the new va hospital for louisville? dr. paul, you are first. >> we should take into account where they want to have it. they are for keeping it in a similar location to where it is.

this is an area which is similar to my philosophy to get the local input. louisville make the decision. we do not need to move the discussion to washington. >> i think we may agree on this. we should listen to the veterans community. we should listen to the local elected officials. we should look at land acquisition issues and we want to make a decision that is best for veterans. the north-central part of the state is really underserved when it comes to veterans nursing homes. i like to look for something around fort knox to get a veterans nursing home at an affordable cost so we can serve that underserved parts of our population. >> you have said your support of

the employee free choice act is due to the fact that you think the majority of workers in the workplace want to organize and they should be able to sign cards. i'm curious about another facet of that same bill which would force federal binding arbitration on businesses and unions, basically a takeover process. >> thank you for the question. you should sit down with your employer and talk about the conditions of and climate. the 50% went to form a union, the odd to be able to do so. if a union is formed and it goes on years and years with no contracts, there should be a mediation process to arrive at a contrast. the larger issue is jobs. we have 10% unemployment.

sometimes the workers will just have to take lower wages. they need a little tough love. check out the home town tax credit on my website, jackconway.com. it could create 11,000 jobs. jobs are not being created. i'm a different type of democrat. we need to provide incentives to the private sector to create the jobs of the future. >> he is a for forced unionization. this gets rid of the secret ballot. this will proceed private contracts. it is a big mistake and will cost lots of jobs. this will cause our schools to remarks offensive. the very clear what his position is. he is for the bill. >> the follow-up is to have more

mediation. >> what i would like to seize the mediation process. it is to ask the this down and arrive at a contract. >> if you vote for the bill, i will vote against it. that makes it a little more simple i think. >> a question for dr. paul. >> you criticized jack conway for raising money and outside of kentucky and challenged him to return his salary to the stage for those days. if elected, you will return to the federal government's or give to a charity any say you earn on days when you were campaigning that side of kentucky for either yourself or your father? >> the interesting thing is she has been gone over half of

september in california with nancy pelosi raising money. we want him to do his job here. he wants to blame the drug problem on may. i am a small town physician in bowling green. he is the chief law-enforcement officer in the state and in the flag of this have doubled. the prescription drug problem is rising. the pressing nature of the drug issue should come back to him. he is the one in charge. >> as of our latest campaign finance report, more than 70% of my money is in the state and more than 70% of his money is from out of state. he does not think the rules apply to him. look at the store this week about kentucky taxpayers united. they did not file their paperwork. he has been going around saying he is the head of this

organization. the organization did not even exist. what was he doing? >> u.s said he would return missing votes. is this more than a voting? >> he should return his money because he is not doing his job. all the problems he is in charge of are getting worse. he was out of state half of september trying to troll for cash in california. yes, i think he should return his. >> i was not in california for half of september "trolling for cash. i have been working attorney- general. i have taken on the pharmaceutical industry. i have taken 86,000 child born images of of the internet. our new cyber crimes unit is working all across the state.

i am proud of my record. >> you have called your upon in a constitutional minimalist. how did you think he would dismantle social security, the minimum wage, etc.? do his views go too far? how do you defend that? >> his record is is saying the -- he is on record saying we have not follow the constitution since 1937. he says we need to go back to a of

medicine. the upheld social security in 1937. in 1936, the supreme court decided the commerce clause was broad enough to regulate coal mine safety. we're losing 1500 coal miners per year back in the 1930's. during world war ii we had blue cross and blue shield. rand paul calls and self a constitutional conservative rather than a libertarian. he does not want federal law enforcement, mining safety laws, and questioned the constitutionality of everything from the 1930's. >> he makes decisions and then we argue made up -- then we argue made up decisions. stop that so we can have an intelligent debate. we have to decide which direction to go. we have to figure out how to

fund medicare and social security for the baby boomers. there are more retired people. he does not want any change ever in medicaid or social security. that will not work. >> i have outlined a couple of provisions for medicare. medicare fraud units will add in $100 billion in savings. he thinks they ought to be privatized within $2,000 deductible. i am sick and tired of him saying that. i will never, never balance the budget on your backs. >> what was that, never balance the budget on their backs? never going to balance the budget. we do have to figure out how to fund social security and medicare.

if you are not willing to have gained -- have an adult discussion, the lottery put this off the worst this gets. >> last question. >> there been discussion about creating less dependence on non renewable energy sources. do you favor a move? if so, how do you explain that to those working in the kentucky coal mining industry? >> i will be the biggest defender of the coal industry and the coal workers. and is a big kentucky industry in employs over 100,000 people. i am not opposed to other forms of energy. i think we should continue to develop them. i am in favor of a when become a nuclear, hydro-electric ring did

you name it and i am in favor. the ultimate decision on which is the best are determined by the marketplace. 300 million people get to vote every day and it is called democratic capitalism. we vote on what is sold at wal- mart. we vote on whether walmart or target succeeds. we vote on coal or nuclear. what we have is a marketplace to determine these. the great thing is that maximizes the freedom of the individual to participate in what they get. i favor all forms of energy. we will continue to burn coal. >> i think he just said he wanted to be an advocate for mining and yet he is on record saying he wants to take federal mining regulations to where they were in the 1930's when we were losing 1500 miners per year. he said coal is one of the least desirable forms of energy. i have stood up for kentucky

trade. i will stand up for kentucky coal. we need to explore the new energy economy because the jobs in the future will be there. >> now get to closing statements. mr. conway, you are first. >> thank you, mark, and thank you to the university of louisville. it was a pleasure to join you. in 16 days, the voters of kentucky have an important choice to make. elections are about choices and we have one here between myself who would put kentucky first and someone like rand paul who does not understand ky. i have fought against drugs and he says it is not an issue. i and a stand that sometimes non-violent actions are in need a crime. i will stand to protect our seniors. i will stand up for medicare. rand paul has called for a

$2,000 deductible and called medicare a ponzi scheme. we have 12,000 newly disabled veterans in the commonwealth of kentucky. he has spoken out against the americans with disabilities act. what will he say to them? i will always stand for workplace safety protections. i'm humbled to ask for your vote on november 2nd. [cheers and applause] >> dr. paul. >> i will not be shaking his hand tonight. i will not shake hands with someone who attacks my religion and attacks my christian beliefs. these are something very personal to me. we take it very personally. i will not be associated with

someone who attacks my religion. we will be about the future of america, who has the best vision. we will try to keep the debate on a higher tone. i hope you will leave my church, my family, my religion out of it. who has the best vision for america? do you believe that government is the answer or the individual entrepreneur, the individual businessman or woman to create jobs? i believe in capitalism. i believe we have the greatest nation ever known to man. we are one of the most humanitarian nations and i will defend those rights. i will keep the government out of the way of business. thank you very much for coming this evening. thank you for your support. [cheers and applause]

>> and those of us at the university of global would like to thank both candidates for putting yourself out there -- university of louisville would like to thank both of you for putting yourself out there. the vote on election day and did you have seen both of the candidates so go and vote. i would like to thank the entire abc staff and our timer who is a scholar. go vote on election day. thank you for joining us from the university of louisville. [cheers and applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> gop nominee rand paul refused to shake his hand. word is teammate skip his next debate entirely. mr. paul is angry about attack ads questioning his christianity and held a press conference in lexington this morning saying he will make a final decision soon if he will go forward with his scheduled debate next week on october 25th. that is in danger of being of -- of being canceled because of his focus on allegations that mr.

paul was a member of a secret society that mock religion. midterm elections are about two weeks away. each evening on c-span, we will show debates from around the country. here is the lineup for tonight. live at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the west virginia senate debate where joe manchin is running. the first of three house races, the wisconsin seventh, the illinois 11th, and the arizona fifth. we have more live debates for you on friday. the focus will be politics. this will feature michael bennett and can balk. that starts at 10:00 -- 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> microsoft on the future of human interaction with computers

and their role. >> the national press club honored bob schieffer with the annual award. it is given to members of the press in recognition of their lifelong contribution to journalism. this is about one hour. >> we want as much time as possible, so we will get our formal program started. thank you so much. bob has the black hat on.

we know we mean business now. we are here tonight to honor the career of one of the greatest journalists here for washington. for four decades, bob schieffer has proven that journalistic -- combining sharp questions with dignity of on the cbs. he has made himself one of the most trusted names. this is an arm that has gone to several of our guests tonight, the fourth estate award. i would like to read knowledge previous winners who are here tonight. austin kiplinger behind kiplinger washington editors.

[applause] william raspberry is in the house. [applause] i just saw him enter, so i know david is here. [applause] and longtime washington correspondent helen thomas. [applause] i am also pleased to welcome several other important assets. we have several former presidents of the national press club. with all of you stand for a moment please? thank you for your acknowledgement. [applause]

the current generation of press club leadership is well represented as well with our members of board of governors and our officers. please rise. [applause] thank you. i certainly want to of knowledge william j. free time wife.idheim's we are thrilled to have you. tonight's dinner benefits the national journalism library. and help with the proceeds. do not let that distract from the desert will be having. our first section is with bob schieffer being a legend of this

newfangled broadcast journalism. i think it might stick. we will start with a video from bob's career. it really shows why we are here tonight. >> i am bob schieffer and i am proud to be at the grand ole opry. i'm going to sing you the story of my life. >> he had already compiled a legendary career. is there anyone who has not heard how it all began? >> i picked up the phone. and woman said, is there anyone who can give me a ride to dallas? this is not a taxi service.

the president has been shot. she said yes, i think my son is the one who shot him. it was lee harvey oswald's mother. he has witnessed all the big moments. >> this report did not receive braves back, in taxes. his mother called and told him to start covering some real news. he did and the state department and the white house. it was there in 1974 as reports circulated that nixon would soon resign because of watergate and our correspondent thought he had a huge scoop. >> a moving van has pulled up to the white house and some people have begun to applaud.

>> it was only stuck in traffic. he had an exclusive all by himself for a few hours. he is almost that -- never had a loss for words. >> according to her, let me read this to make sure we do not -- he unzipped his pants and exposed himself. they had sex of a kind. >> bob discovered the major beats. he anchored every news broadcast on cbs. he returned to washington in 2006 where he continues to question all the top newsmakers. >> hello, how are you? -- elmo, how are you?

you should set a good example by saying i will try to stop smoking. maybe you could get the president a year he smokes, too. maybe the two of you could stop smoking. that would be a good thing. >> i appreciate your suggestion. >> it seems he has interviewed just about everyone in the politics and government. he is always trying to develop new sources. it is a task he seems to enjoy. he is hard to beat on a story. on rare occasions his star has been eclipsed. a guy he was not even there stole the show. >> joe the plumber. >> joe the plumber. >> is that the best you can do? >> who wants more pizzazz? this will be our first "face the

nation" broadcast with a blimp. i never in my wildest dream thought we would have a blimp shot. i have a bobblehead. ic to hisountry musci t love of tcu, no one has had more fun. he looks more and more like a senior stater. [applause] >> it is a thrilled to learn more about here tonight and one example you are two generations

of journalists. and to find out more, we will have to examine more deeply and deal with some of the people who know him most. to find out more, we now turn to the co-chairman of the nuclear threat initiative, a funny topic. the former center -- senator, a long established wise man. senator, welcome to the national press club. [applause] >> thank you to the members of

the press club. congratulations, bob. this is a prestigious award. it is long overdue. for many decades, he had been on the brink of honest reporting. i am honored to join in this roast mandate. lindsay, sam, and sean are all democrats. thank you for taking the risk of this evening. bob, i hope he will put tonight proxy's lines and arrows in their proper perspective.

this reminds me of a conversation that happened years ago with my friend and russell long. as the old timers here know, he was the son of the louisiana governor and senator huey long. we were having lunch with russell and his wife shirley after they had seen the movie allegedly about on go girl who was also a great character. some of you may remember -- about uncle earl. she was attracted dancer and a stripper who had been strongly governor russell's earl long. russell, was that movie really about your uncle?

he stuttered and said they saw it. it really was about uncle earl. i saw another question coming. was all that bad stuff about your uncle true? coleen, they said a lot of terrible things and some of them were outright lies but they missed a lot, too, so i'm willing to call it even. we will probably miss a lot tonight, bob, but i hope you will call it even. bob schieffer is a legend in the eyes of his peers. [applause]

in the eyes of the american people, webster defines a legend as a non verified the story. bob schieffer's story started with humble beginnings. it was in a taxes town so small that even the episcopalians played with snakes. [laughter] in spite of his surroundings, he was identified as a precocious child. each time his family moved, he was always able to find them. [laughter] as his brother, tom schieffer, said it to his biographer in his quaint the slaying, "bob was a

cunning little bastard" which explains his career choice. [laughter] in college, he also gravitated toward journalism because he loved reading. while others were partying late night in college, he read until his lips were exhausted. being from texas was always an advantage from the very beginning with his work at "the fort worth star-telegram." he adopted the schieffer mano, while is evil and a san to believe people of of us, it is

very seldom a mistake. that same experience even gives bob van -- an advantage over the younger reporters. observing politics growing up, he decided long ago that politicians are like diapers and need to be changed often. and for the same reason. [laughter] [applause] of has a keen instinct for what the american voters are hungering for, to get rid of the democrats without bringing back the republicans.

bonn became a cbs anchor man when it dawned on him that the job was to explain to millions when he personally does not understand. he became a tough cross examiner on "face the nation" because he learned early on that is hard to understand. that brings us to the big question that all of bob's friends have been wondering about. how was he able to persuade the beautiful, charming, amazing pat to marry him? [cheers and applause ] he almost made a fatal mistake many decades ago when he was going through his midlife

crisis. after being married for almost 25 years in becoming a highly paid cbs superstar, he looked at at one day and said, "25 years ago we had a cheap apartment, drove a cheap car, and watched the 10-inch black-and-white tv. i got to sleep every night with a hot 25-year-old girl. now we have a multimillion- dollar home, a $70,000 car, a king size bed and a big screen tv and i am sleeping with a 50- year-old woman. it seems you're not holding up your side of things." as a reasonable and devoted wife she replied, "bob, widebody not go out and find a hot 25-year- old girl and i will make sure you are soon again living downtown -- living again in a

rundown apartment." [applause] [laughter] car,l be driving a cheap sitting on a sofa bed, and watching black-and-white tv. this may not be completely accurate, but as they say at cbs, is it too good to verify. from this midlife crisis forward, bond gained a different perspective. bob is now known as a unique, down to earth, one of us anchor man. most journalists in his position including some of those with us this evening have to choose between hypocritical humility.

bob has remained modest. pat has a way to continue to get bob to climb down from his pedestal including even from his most coveted and recent crowning achievement, becoming a star song writer and singer. when he was asked to perform at the grand ole opry in 2008, he exclaimed to pat, "did you ever imagine in your wildest dreams that i would become a star at the grand ole opry"? she thought and answered, "bob, honey, you have never been in my wildest dreams." [applause] [laughter]

i am told the polling data indicates she was speaking for the vast majority of american women. bob seems to become a sex symbol for women who no longer care. [laughter] this reminds me of bob schieffer's only real critic, bill reilly -- bill o'reilly. he went too far quoting him. "this just in, a reliable source handed me the source to bob schieffer's newest song so he could unveil it if it even -- he

ever gets invited back to the grand ole opry. here they are. his lyrics. papi said now suzie girl, you'll have to choose another i'd just assume your mother didn't know but joe is your half brother there's trouble still. with fear and trembling in his voice, he begged to do not tell your mother. will, joe, and several more i know are your half brothers. girl, do what makes you happy. mary will, mary jo, because you are not -- marry will, marry joe papi." ain't kin to

[laughter] bob, you might as well go ahead and sing it for us tonight. this concludes my serious remarks. now a couple of observations about bob schieffer. t.s. eliot said, these two questions, where is the knowledge we have lost in information and where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? every day bob schieffer uses information to help the american people gain knowledge and sometimes even wisdom. in the 24/7 information age and a bumper sticker politics, bob manages to bring intellectual integrity to his profession. bob schieffer has spent a lifetime helping americans get

the facts they need to weigh the challenges facing our nation, and to judge the action. bob has earned the fourth estate award because he has all the qualities you would hope to have in a journalist -- courage, compassion, integrity, and a commitment to the truth. thank you for your leadership and for our longstanding leadership. thank you on this well-deserved award. thank you for keeping bob at high level. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator. are you finding a liberating to not be in office any more and be able to just tell it like it is? someone who still is in office and giving us the republican perspective on bob schieffer is

senator graham. he has served south carolina since 2003. he has earned the reputation of being one of the most active and quotable members of the senate. what about bob? [laughter] -- [applause] >> you would never know he is in print. good job. he told me five minutes off the record, no one would be there. thanks for inviting me, bob. you are about to see the difference between a current and former senator. a guy who still wants to keep his job. who thought he would be funny? [laughter] obviously this nuclear stuff

does not take any time if he can write all of that stuff. to my friends in the tea party, you are not missing a damn thing. this is a party for latte drinkers. we are two weeks before the election. what do we have in common? a love of bob? no, i always wondered how bob chose me as the republican speaker and then i started thinking about the republican party. [laughter] who was he going to pick? [laughter] he couldn't pick from a group of talented people with much diversity. he could have chosen any angry white guy in the country, but he chose me. [laughter] and a lot of luck to be here

just to tell all of you all to go to hell. [laughter] jim bunning with charm. leader, mitch mcconnell, who said no before he even got the invitation. [laughter] why stopping successful strategy now? so we had a lot to choose from and he chose me and i am forever grateful. this is the night your opponents dream of because is on tv. but to our democratic friends, and that is about everybody here -- [laughter] where is the fox table? i did not think so. everything you heard about is

true about these folks. he could have chosen any democrat in the world. do you agree with that? what democrats would not want to be at an event with you all honoring bob schieffer. there would have jumped at the opportunity. but he chose sam nunn. and that tells you all you need to know about the modern democratic party. [laughter] apparently, there are no acceptable democrats the served after the fall of the berlin wall. [laughter] sam, you are a good man. you're a good mentor. in our business, that means you are old. [laughter] but when i grow up, i want to .e like you and stronmm but look cool bob picked over salmon.

herb kohl, the inventor of the internet, al gore -- but you did choose me and i appreciated. if i thought it was going to be this big deal, i would have thought more about what i was going to say. as i mentioned tonight, bob is a legend, right? if you have any doubt, just ask him. [laughter] he went to texas christian university. [applause] a great school where you love jesus or else. [laughter] bob, how does it feel to be the most famous horned frog in america? and who had the hell thought of that as your whatever you call it, your mascot? but as sam said, bob is a young man and showed a lot of promise. early on as a a

horny toad. pat would not agree with that, but that is what i have been told. but he is a true journalist. he entered the profession before good looks did not matter. [laughter] as you can see from these clips, the things i studied in history he actually did a [laughter] . -- he actually did [laughter] -- he actually did. [laughter] sunday talk is the last place where you can have a good discussion. do you agree with that? [applause] it really] of interviewing is something that -- and bob's style of interviewing is something to behold. senator, do you really believe that crap? [laughter] makes larry king

look like a baseball being thrown at your head. bob like that. that was good. [laughter] we have come full circle, ladies and gentlemen, from a young, gifted horny toad to being dean of the d.c. journalist court. translated, bob, that means you survived a lot and you were older than dirt. [laughter] there are a lot of people here tonight who want to be like bob when they grow up. there are a lot of politicians in america who should want to be like sam nunn. we're two weeks away from a big election. if you're watching television, the commercials, and the debates, would you even know we were at war? have you heard one commercial about whether or not we should stay in afghanistan or whether we should leave?

have you heard any serious exchanges about what happens to the world if iran gets a nuclear weapon? two weeks away and, before we get done having fun tonight, most likely, some young american will have lost their lives in afghanistan or iraq. what i like about you, bob, is that you do not let america for get the things that we need to be thinking about. and i watch "face the nation close " not to watch a blowhard like me. i will be on sunday. i watch the show for the last minute. [applause]

hyde did everything but the food channel back then. but there was a time when it looked like there was no way out and the place was collapsing. and he said, you know what? this is tough. this is challenging. and i am not so sure impeachment is the right thing, but we're going to make it. this is a strong country who said it will do its will and we will pick up the pieces. you do not realize how that affected the guy actually doing it. i was wondering, do we pick up the pieces and move on? but bob said we could. and two weeks ago, he said something about one of the contentious issues of the moment. this group that wants to protest at funerals of slain soldiers, god knows we need to protect the first amendment. the people who know what the

best are the slain soldiers. but bob was able to do something that no judge could ever hope to do in about the seconds -- explain it. explain what the first amendment means, is really worth dying for it.protectiv when bob schieffer said, he know what? that just does not seem right. that some group could to the heart out of a father when he is trying to bury his son. that is why we're here tonight. pat, that is why you marry him. to the children, that is why you are glad he is your father. and i am for eliminating the debt tax for the children. [laughter] [applause] in conclusion, i do not think i said anything that will create

campaign commercial for me. i was honored you pick me, but again, you did not have a lot of choices. [laughter] as long as bob schieffer is reading the news or talking to america about what is going on, i feel like we are in good hands. you deserve this award. [applause] >> thank you, senator gramm. nobody knows this better and our work places that are the bosses. we're so glad this sean mcmanus is here. he has served as manager of cbs sports since 1910 -- since 1996. president of both cbs news and cbs sports since 2005. when bob told sean he wanted to

retire in 2008, mcmanus said, do not want to stick around to see one more campaign? bob now calls that the best advice he ever got. so now, with some words of wisdom for all of us, let's welcome sean mcmanus. [applause] >> those are two cut fax to follow. thank you very much and congratulations, bob, on this great honor. when bob first asked me to do this with back in january, i did not hesitate for a second to say yes. i figured, this guy will not make it to october anyway. [laughter] and i will not stand here and i will not do a lot of old jokes, bob. i think i would be really inappropriate. but i did some research into bob's background also. i was amazed to learn that you started your career as a copy

boy for course really at "the herald tribune." i know you were a young man, but your coverage of the fatty arbuckle trial was unbelievable. [laughter] look at bob's resonate. it is very -- look at bob resume. it is very unbelievable. the kennedy and assassination, the tragedy of 9/11. he is a barrel of laughs, is he not? i have an e-mail that he sent me when he invited me to speak here tonight. when i got it, i was really touched and honored. i thought i would read it to you tonight. i thought, i will for in this in my office for the rest of my life. the evil said, "dear sean, i would be honored if you would be one of the people to rest on october 15. as you are really my first and only choice from cbs, i am asking you weigh in events. there's no more appropriate or

fitting person to handle this task. i thought that was really nice. unfortunately, there were two e- mails below that that i do not think bob intended -- [laughter] for me to see. but i will read those to you also. the first one is from our boss leslie to bob schieffer. "dear bob, i cannot thank you enough for it depicts -- fresh to me to be one of your roasters. i really appreciate the fact that i am the only one from cvs that you considered asking. much as i would love to join you, i have a cbs board meeting that week. what i suggest you invite shot to do that. i know he is a big fan of yours. on top of that, there was a note from bob schieffer to leslie. "i appreciate your suggestion

that u.s. shot. i am more inclined to ask charlie osgood or steve cross. [laughter] i am not sure that sean is up to the test. hope to see you soon. thank you for lease making your fourth choice and that, bob. [laughter] on a more serious note, bob has been the epitome of the most perfect gentleman at cbs, selfless and only really interested in what is best for cbs news. when it came time for him to relinquish the anchor chair to katie couric, he could not have been more gracious or welcoming. i wrote down the response when i said to him that he give up the chair. i will paraphrase, but this is basically what he said. there is no f-ing way i am giving of this chair. it is mine and i am not giving

it up. now get the hell out of year. there has never been more gracious or selfless man then bob schieffer. i do not think bob actually does this during the evening news at all. i am not sure that that is completely true. but pat tells me that he goes to the basement every evening and reads the news by himself. i give him an awful lot of credit for changing the the times. as you know, our business has changed a lot in the last couple of years, especially when it comes to the commercial side of our business, all of sponsored segments and vignettes and billboards. bob has gone into with all the stuff. i am told that, after a romantic interlude with his wife, he will say, this performance was brought to you by pfizer. [laughter] [applause] i believe you're still the only

guy that i know who still uses a teleprompter in the bedroom, correct? correct. back in the 1970's, a lot of networks did expos days of the country's prisons and foster homes in this country. they looked at the horrifying conditions of willowbrook. nbc produced a compelling look at the california prison system. bob himself decided to do a similar series. although, unfortunately, he chose one of those + country club presence outside of dallas, posing as a white-collar criminal. for obvious reasons, this report never aired on cbs. but i did find a transcript. i thought which are part of it with you. "warden, tell me a bit about the regimen here at the prison. the warden said, "bob, monday is education day here at the prison.

a visiting professors from university of texas, man from baylor. we have guest lectures from all of the world. do you like learning and education, bob av said -- bob? bob said, i love it. >> you are going to love tuesdays. wednesday is physical fitness day. we have one of the best health clubs in texas. they get to play sports all along. thursday is spotted. -- thursday is spa day. bob says, would lose friday? friday is romance day.

everybody gets dressed up and goes to a formal romantic dinner. it is a special evening. he says, bob, do you like men or do you like women? bob says, i really like women. the warden says, you will hate fridays. [laughter] that investigation never made air. i am not the only one with a sports background respects and admires bob schieffer. there's someone else from my other world of sports who'd paid tribute to bob. please make sure that you care what this tape on the right place because there is a false start on the state. please make sure you cue it up on the right place. >> anderson, you are my news source. your the trusted voice that i need for my daily news and take for what is going on around the world and i say thank you. congratulations on this big

award you are receiving tonight. >> jimmy, that is prepare requested to get that already? >> you need to do this one. this is our good friend bob schieffer out of washington. >> who the hell was bob schieffer? >> you know bob schieffer is. >> i do not know who bought schieffer is. >> he is great player. he plays golf with us. he has gone to dinner with us. >> and the worst for cbs news and is famous? >> seed as a morning show on sunday. >> you got the wrong guy. you're talking about charles osgood. >> no, the cbs morning news show. this is "face the nation with bob schieffer." >> ok. i do not know who is. >> he knows of the movers and shakers in politics. >> is he on the air or is he the producer? >> no, he is on the air.

he is a legendary news personality. >> walter, right? crises in that category. -- >> he is in that category. >> does he go by bob orr by robert? >> he goes by bob. >> ok, let's get. >> here rigo. -- here we go. >> robert, i just want to say. >> no, bob. >> you are sure he goes by bob and not robert. >> he is a good friend. i cannot believe this. though. >> bob, i just want to say i am just a huge fan of your show " faced the press." >> it is "face the nation." >> . i know we have a big game year, but he is a good friend. >> bob schieffer, i just want to

say that you are that trusted voice i need. you are my man to tell me what is going on around the world. i know you are getting a recognition today. you are an unbelievable front of me. thank you from cbs news and all- america. god bless you. [applause] >> we had coffee with them, we have had better >> to do this for real now? hey, mr. schieffer, hat in hand. on the big hand of my co- conspirators, your fellow texan, a fort worth man, and even sean mcmanus, i hope you had a few laughs. we do admire you and love you so much for your friendship and professionalism. usually are a trusted voice. i am sorry you got the recognition you deserve. there is no one who tells the story better, more cogently, more honestly and sincerely,

with the compassionate heart that we needed that bob schieffer. i'm very lucky that i have your friendship. on behalf of all of our crew at cbs sports and the cbs family, thank you and god bless you and congratulations. no one deserves as recognition more than you right here today. congratulations, bob. [applause] >> i told you you were going to like that, did i not? really, on a serious note, there is no one in this industry for who might have more respect than bob schieffer. it is not an overstatement to say that, in our darkest moment at cbs news, bob schieffer step in, took control of the anchor chair, both literally and figuratively, and pride at the shift. that is -- he is the man at washington now. his stature and steny continues

to grow. i admire you as a broadcaster, but just as much as a husband, a father, a grandfather, and a very good friend. he has made my 10 years at cbs news more manageable and enjoyable. his counseling as a mentor has been invaluable to me. i value his sense of history and his great sense of humor. bob is a great journalist, writer, and broadcaster, and a relatively accomplished country singer and band leader. at least viable. i guess we will find out tonight. [laughter] he is a true as it at cbs news and in this town and in this business. congratulations, bob. i actually really do love you, man. you are a good man. [applause] >> thank you, sean.

thank you to all three of our roasters. give them a round of applause. [applause] for their highly informative and illuminating look at the courier and travails of bob schieffer, brought to you by pfizer, thank you, bob. [laughter] the format is a little bit different for the dinner this year. things change from time to time and things change in the field of journalism. we have seen a lot of different winners and a lot of different situations and a lot of changes in this profession as well. the first night it was given was the night of the saturn as a -- of the saturday night massacre. although news breaks and duty calls, we know who will be in the seat first. one thing remains constant through these dinners. again, we are honoring a true

giant of journalism. from the day that john f. kennedy was shot to this very day, bob schieffer has been at the top of the game, at the top of his profession. he has done it all over the years. he has moderated presidential debates, interviewed president, anchored to the cbs evening news. along the way, he has won seven emmys and seven delta, awards. he has been awarded -- he has seen the journalism school at his alma maters. what is that again? texas christian university? i figure it's a reminder that one. he saw the school named in his honor. through it all, he has carried it with a grace that is extraordinary as his journalism. given that fact and given the way that bob has weathered the changes in his profession in the challenging times we have been in, it was really only a matter of time that bob would join walter cronkite, tom brokaw, and

many of the other great journalist who have won the national press club's most prestigious award. so, bob, on behalf of the national press club, it is my pleasure and honor to present you with this year's 2010 national press club for state award. [applause] >> pardon me.

but i have been waiting for this for a long, long time. [laughter] they have been 39 of the happiest years of my life. [applause] [laughter] i have been sitting in the sidelines for most of this time, practicing my adoring nancy reagan days. [laughter] i never got it down just right, but give me credit for never falling asleep. [laughter] that is especially hard when you hear those same old stories over and over and over and over again. about mrs of walt and lyndon johnson. trust me, i can tell myself verbatim. but you have heard them, too, so i will not. but we have had a pretty good run. our anniversary lester, bob said to me, is there really anything you have done that you wish you -- anything you have not done that you wish you could have done. and i said yes, george clooney.

[laughter] [applause] every gun -- everyone thinks that bob is so self confident. but like any man, he needs some self assurance. he was looking in the mirror and complaining about getting old the of the day. he said he had those alawful bas under his eyes. he said, please, tell me something positive that will make me feel better. i looked at him and said you have 20/20 vision. [laughter] well, the truth is he is not perfect, but he will do until perfect comes along. so i think i will keep him. i might as well. at his age, he does not have

much trade in value. [laughter] but tonight, ladies and gentlemen, i will give him to you. [applause] >> you have to be careful in this crowd. [laughter] thank you very much, pat. pat and i have been married 43 years. [applause] as you can see, the reason for that, there are two reasons -- number one, she has a great sense of humor. and number two, i have -- i am very good for gun-control, especially around the house. [laughter]

the girl is 71 years old. she is still going along and she is still hot. i tell you that. [applause] she said to me the other night, "honey, you want to run upstairs and have some? fun" i said, you know, i could run upstairs or i could have some fun, but i do not think i can do both. [laughter] she is really something. having sam here and having lindsay here and having shown here, i must say, i am discouraged to suck up a little bit here. he is the best boss i have ever had. sean, i really thank you all for coming. lindsey and sam, both of whom i have known for years, they practice this unique thing in legislating.

but to actually reach across the aisle and find ways to work together. we do not see that much anymore. [applause] i am really proud to know both of them. i think both of you for coming. you are two of my very best friends and two of the people that i admire the most. any time to get mentioned in the same paragraph as walter cronkite -- walter, right -- walter cronkite was why wanted to be when i was a little boy. he is still want to be. and to win an award that walter one in this very room is very meaningful to me. i accept it on behalf of journalism. you know, i am going to tell you a secret. i did not get into journalism for noble reasons. i got into it because i thought it would be a lot of fun. and, you know, it has been.

i will never forgets that i saw my byline for the first time when i was in the eighth grade in the school newspaper and it looked so fine sitting up on top of that article. i thought, boy, i just love that. it made me feel so good. and that was really the beginning of my wanting to be a reporter. i never, ever, from that day forward, and ever wanted to do anything else. unfortunately, my mother wanted me to be a doctor. so i spent kind of a two-year detour at d.c. you doing premed -- at dcu doing premed. i finally told my mom, this is what i wanted to do, and i did. i took organic chemistry for my elective. i had to take 21 hours to graduate. and i did. i can say that i did graduate on

time, which is the best i can say for my education. i was not so much, lauded -- i was not so much, mata -- i was not suma caum laude. i had to make a c in spanish. i took nine semesters of spanish to get the required four semesters of spanish. i was standing up there in that line wondering if i had passed because my grits had not come and i did actually may c. i got up on that stage and got my diploma and got out of there before they came it took away from a. [laughter] all my life, i have been a reporter. as i look around the room tonight, with the possible exception of dick morgan who is

sitting here in the front row -- he and i played baseball in high school together -- every other single person in this room that i know i'm mad because i became a journalist. it has been in such a wonderful life. i enjoyed it so much. it is not the stories that you cover. it is the people that you meet along the way that make it so much fun. but let me say one other thing tonight in a very slightly serious way. this will be the last serious thing i will have to say. i still think journalism is about having fun. journalism is a noble profession when it is practiced in the right way. and the reason that it is is because we cannot have democracy as we know it today unless the people out there have access to independently gathered information which they can

compare to the government's version of events. [applause] and that is what we do. and that is what we ought to be proud of doing. and we are at a crossroads now. we do not know where the technology will take this profession that we all in this room love. we do not know if we will get the news on our wrist watch or on a piece of paper. but the important thing is that it be independently gathered and that it be accurate. you know, the internet is the only vehicle we have ever had to deliver news that has no editor. the worst newspaper has somebody on the staff that knows where this stuff came from. the internet today, and internet pops up. we do not know where it comes up, whether it is true, whether it is false. we do not know anything about it.

the judge for a journalist is not where is the technology taking us, but is the product we will deliver to the american people going to be held to the same standards that the mainstream media in years to today? first and foremost, that we do not publish or broadcast anything unless we know it is true. [applause] so i will just say to you tonight, the proud of what you do. we do not know where the technology is going, but, independently gathered information and access to it by every citizen is as crucial and as vital to democracy as the right to vote. we have to have that. we have to keep it up. you cannot have democracy as we know it without it. if we do our jobs, if we get independently gathered, accurate

information to the public that indeed is a noble thing and is something that all of us can be proud of. i am proud to be part of journalism. i always have been. i think you all for being here tonight. you are all my friends here tonight. [applause] and now, ladies and gentlemen -- and now -- i do not want you to pay too much attention to what you have heard before because, right now, i will give you a true and the acrid story of how i got into journalism and how i became a reporter. here we go.

little lulu is the tall one and sister hot stuff is the sure one. here is the story on how i became a tv anchor man. ♪ ♪ ♪ i was just a good old boy tried to get along, pumping gas, try to get along guy pulled up in a red corvette said filler up but not

just yet ♪ first let me look deep into your eyes ♪ i said come excuse me, but, before you intrude ♪ i am a cowboy from out in lonesome dove ♪ this is not what i am about ♪ i am a news consultant, atv scout ♪ you do not have to know that much like names and dates and facts and such ♪ you have a face that reeks sincerity ♪ i was not sure i understood but this work sure sounded good ♪ and he said we would make tv history ♪ be a tv anchor man ♪ going to be on the eyewitness seen hav

♪ so i took this job and starting to write in my sincere not ♪ he said i had the face of a sincere heart on theew a happy face script where i should smile and the key demographics went off the chart ♪ i have to say they paid me good and now a cute little stage manager kissed me on my cue -- iteats upon been gasse beats pumping gas ♪ be a tv anchorman ♪ i am joining the eye witness team ♪ have her razor cut hair

dreamed the american no more windshields i have to wipe retell news lighting up the mood man became a tv anchor teamned the eye witness ♪ with razor cut hair and the bills up to their ♪ it is the new american ♪ the all american dream ♪ >> all right. i will be taking questions and making personal appearances this wednesday night. ♪ [applause]

>> early voting gets underway today in alaska, arkansas, colorado, florida, north dakota, and the district of columbia. that brings to 23 the number of states where early voting or statewide absentee voting is underway before the elections which is 15 days away. each night on c-span, we are showing debates from key races around the country. tonight, at 8:00 p.m. eastern, it is the west virginia senate debate where democratic gov. joe manson is competing with republican john racy. and our lady, the first of three house races with wisconsin's seventh followed by the illinois 11th and the arizona fifth district of its. we have dozens of the bits available for you. what anytime on line. there are also political ads, speeches, campaign rallies, and web pages. that is at c-span.org/politics.

daniel week, microsoft's reed on the future of humor interaction with computers and his company's role with software. >> former clinton administration defense secretary joined us this morning on "washington journal" to talk about the politics of outsourcing. this is about 40 minutes. c- span.org. host: william cohen is with us. thank you for being here. you have a recent piece in the "wall street journal." you make a case for outsourcing actually does have a positive affect, here at home. guest: most of the time, it has been we ship jobs overseas and

it is a zero sum game. what the statistics show is, when companies start to invest overseas, they are actually making profit so they can get back to core competency, and they create more jobs back at home. the study was done by a professor at the dartmouth business school. that was early on from 1987 through 2001. we have to look at these companies that outsource, what they can do to make their domestic operations more profitable. that has to be taken into accoun there are definitely job losses at certain mills. those need to be replaced,

ually at higher-paying jobs. host: you write -- what jobpportunities could be generated? rn these jobs are these jobs that could take a higher wage? re these jobs that take more skill, that have a higher wage? guest: at some point, we will not be able to compete because the wages are so low. but whatakes sense is investing in those countries so that we can hire people here to

invest. the emphasis will always be on innovation. we are really good at investing in new technology. we are replacing the lower end jobs with higher paying jobs, which requires more education, skl, but that is the evolution of the international economy. countries that are poor are willing to work lower wages. it is an opportunity for us to sell exports to those in emerging countries. it is a good opportunity for consumer markets. the same thing for india. they are emerging as a major player on the scene. in major opportunity to show a good market of american products. host: even in pop culture, you

say, outsourcing is a bad thing. you start your piece by referencing an nbc comedy titled "outsourced." you write -- guest: they have shipped jobs overseas, but the studies do not show what jobs were created as a result of the outsourcing. secondly, we are not taking into account insourcing.

there are a couple of companies that i am familiar with who are creating jobs in the united states. so we also have in sourcing as well as outsourcing of jobs. we are living in a globalized economy. that means if we are going tbe competitive, we have to be invested in other countries to be sure we can take advantage of those markets. hopefully, that will continue to keep us prosperous so that we can hold on and increase the jobs that we have. host: and recent poll found that outsourcing was the top reason for american economic problems. guest: it is true, that is the public perception. however, out of the free trade

agreements that we have, it is actually a positive a result of this agreement. president obama has said he wants to double the exports of the united states in the next five years. he has an opportunity to do that. there are three free trade agreement pending. one with colombia, panama, and one with south korea. the one with panama, it is predicted to create up to 100,000 jobs. those three agreements will help to create jobs in the united states, yet they have been put off to the side. hopefully, he will bring them up immediately after the elections. calling them to lapse would contribute to unemployment. -- allowing themo lapse would contribute to unemployment.

i think the case has not been made, when you live in a globalized economy, when you depend on selling your product to other people -- you have to remember 95% of the consumers in this world live outside of the u.s. one way to capitalize on that economy is to be closer to the consumer, take advantage of opportunities in those countries, generate profits in those countries that can be repatriated back to the u.s. politically, it seems simple, jobs are going out, none are coming in. in fact, the and implements situation is much more complex. it has to do with the size of our deficit, the fact that we see a lot of competition domestically. we have over regulation in some cases, not enough in others.

it is complex and why we are not doing well. but if you look at where we were when the clinton administration left office, with a surplus, and now looking at the size of the $1.30 trillion annual deficit we are facing, what went wrong? we spend a lot of money with the bush tax cuts. we spent a lot of money with the war in iraq. we spend a lot of money on the prescription drug benefits that goes to millions of seniors and others. we have contributed to that. that cycle of spending more than we are taking in has also contributed also to the loss of jobs. host: secretary cohen is the chairman and ceo of ditcthe coh group. he was also a senator and member of the house of representatives from the 1970's through the 1990's.

raley the first republican official tapped by a democratic administration to join a cabinet. let's get to the phone calls. pat in indiana. caller: good morning. host: you are breaking up on us. could you say that again? caller: 33% of our manufacturing jobs left the country. we cannot keep losing our jobs. guest: we are losing manufacturing jobs than the question becomes, we have to start manufacturi things that will be attracted to the consumer, build a better product at a better price and then market domestically and internationally.

if we price ourselves out of the marketplace, we will see other countries, brazil, germany, china, india, taking the advantage o being able to manufacture something at a lower price with equal quality. so we have to be able to manufacture things that day higher tech level, be able to market them at an attractive price. host: next phone call. republican line. caller: i have always considered myself a gm man but now i would never buy a gm product. money was stolen from car dealers and bond holders and haed to labor dealer, who caused this problem in the first place.

it is a ridiculous contract you negotiated. they are not allowing us to compete. guest: i think there have been a lot of contributions as to why we were not as competitive in the open marketplace. i think we are making a comeback. we still have many japanese, german-made cars coming into this country, and it has forced american carmakers to be much more imaginative, style of these products. other companies are getting ahead of us in terms of hybrid technologies. but that foreign competition has forced us to be better. as a result, we wi be better, and you will see more and more people buying american cars. host: a question on twitter --

guest: we are selling more in canada. we have to divide it up in terms of selling goods and services. we have a surplus of services in canada. same thing in mexico. obviously, we are suffering major deficit dealing with china. that is something that we are focused on now, not only on the currency the early asian, but on what subsidies they provide for their major companies. it is something that the newspapers are now focused on. what incentives are given, are they compliant with wto regulations? that will be the focus in the next several months until next year. host: as you look at the obama ministration, what are the number-one challenges facing the

defense team? guest: how do we continue to look to the future? whatort of threats exist? secretary gates has done a good job. what he has said is we need to look forward. there is something called the qdr. that is allowing us to look ahead in the future, trying to identify the threats that we will face. he has come to the conclusion that we need to look at the asymmetrical-type of threats. there is no country that could face us face to face and match up their military two hours, but that is not what we are facing. we are facing extreme terrorists who are eager to die and kill us in the process. the two airplanes that took down the twin towers, they were

airplanes turned into missiles. what we have to do is try to anticipate. we are moving into a world where we are likely to face asymmetric warfare, cyber warfare, with a few clicks of a computer, shut down our ability to function. anticipating the threats and dealing with them in a world in which we are so intrated, in which much of our lives are tied into cyber technology. cyber technolog is very fast, efficient, but it is also vulnerable. those are the threats that we need to look at. host: william cohen is a former defense secretary under the clinton administration. you can call about other defense issues in the news. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205.

birmingham, alabama. and that on the independent line. -- emmett on the independent line. caller: one of the reasons we are losg so much production in the u.s. is because the production is given to people who are not productive at all. bankers, politicians, lawyers, they are given allhe power. they are not productive at all. guest: and you have the opportunity to change that in a couple of weeks. we have a maj election coming up. most american people feel we have not been responsive, fiscally, have not planned with prudence, we have overspent our ability to pay. we have passed on a tax burden

to our children, which they will be unable to pay. that is part of the anger. your comments reflect that sentiment. that is the sentiment that is out there, that we have not been doing our jobs across all segments of society from the corporate business community to the political world, to virtually every aspect of our society. we have failed to deliver high ality product, service, efficient and reasonable price products. you have touched upon a nerve that is very much alive in society. the idea of fiscal values really affecting the debt, and you get the sense that the defense budget will also give the hatchett?

secretary gates is trying to be pre-emptive, i think, to read these prepare -- to at least prepare with savings. taking a daughter of things that can be betr performed by others and try to streamline the operation to protect the american people in the future. i do not think there will be any question about the size of the military, both tours the we are engaged in jamaat iraq, which does not look to be going too well. it has cost us over $1 trillion. i think many of the american people want to know why we make that commitment and where we are still there. let's go to corpus christi, texas, phyllis, democrats line, good morning. good morning.