♪ ♪ ♪ >> tomorrow night, the first

u.s. and a debate in illinois. republican congressman mark occured faces democrats. this was president obama is senate seat. live coverage from chicago begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. then, pennsylvania's canada for governor. tom corbett and others. and then a debate between florida's u.s. senate candidates. later, a debate between wisconsin's candidates for governor. watch political campaign coverage each night on c-span. >> we continue our campaign debate coverage here on c-span. in about an hour, a debate for

arizona's fifth congressional district. now, the debate for candidates running for illinois' 11th district. they debated last week at illinois state university. before this debate, which is courtesy of the illinois channel, we will take a closer look at the district and the race. >> c-span's content vehicles are looking at the house races leading up to the midterm election. >> is with a lot of hard work, but the message that you guys believe in, which is limited government, get the government out of my way and let me brave my own trial. i think it is amazing. you guys are probably feeling on the ground what i am feeling all over the place, which is

that we are going to take our country back. and that is great. [applause] >> we are in this together. but if people don't vote, we are going to wake up and things are going to be really bad. we want to wake up knowing that we're going to continue moving forward. becausethe first thing i learned, is if you are in a hole, quit digging. we are out of that hole. i don't want to go back to digging out of it. >> the candidates for the 11th congressional district are the incumbent that is from far south illinois and she is being challenged by adding teams in -- -adam kinsington.

>> she is a freshman in the district has beenrepresented by republicans for years. republicans want to try to get that seat back. she has also voted with the president on two of the most controversial votes introduced, the stimulus package and the health care reform bill. she is being targeted on a couple of votes. however, she did run on reform. this is something that is important to voters. >> i do not think she wants to be seen with obama. there have party been some mailers out linking her to nancy pelosi. i think she is trying to present herself as an independent. i do not think she wants to be seen with president obama.

there has been a little pockets of tea party activity year. you are hearing from the tea party folks that they want smaller government and less spending. those are all issues that are coming up in this race. farming community. she does have some are moderate stance is. she is trying to remind voters that sheet is a homegrown gal. that is what she has for her. she rose from being a town ship cleric to being a member of the u.s. congress. she works very hard and she is a known commodity around here. she is battling with the voters

being very familiar with her. >> my district has always been a put swing district. it can go either way. when i won the last time, we knew that it would be a tough race all along. i represented a swing district 12 years. even then. the voters like the fact that i am an independent fighter. people want somebody who is going to fight for them. i brought the city to be vacated silver cross hospital, it is going to be a veteran center. we want to make short to fight for things that are in trouble district. >> adam kinzinger ran for office at the age of 20. he went and joined the air national guard and served several tours of duty in iraq and afghanistan.

he is a very well spoken, and of points. he's great at fundraising. he is not afraid to pop been on a fund raiser and asked for a contribution. he is running on a kind of a more pro-business, lower taxes platform. he also is not the most conservative person in this primary. he is getting some tea party support, but there were others that he ran against that were more conservative than he was. he ran on an agenda that he is willing to work with others. he has pulled back a little bit. he ran on a message of it being >> we know unemployment around the country is bad. in my district, it is especially bad.

one of the things that has stood out, in illinois, is corruption. there is been a culture of corruption for the last decade in illinois. people are tired of that. they're tired of arrogance in government. i think that is the reason we're seeing a lot of the problems we are seeing. that is why we are seeing out of control spending and out of control unemployment. washington d.c. -- you do not spend more than you take in. ultimately, that is what matters. >> his biggest challenge -- if she were a democrat that had served all this time, it would be much easier for him. but she is just a freshman. she cannot or the jacket for the -- wear the jacket for the deficit. she has not been there. looks like they will both be --

they are both raising money. it looks like they will both raise and spend over $1 million. it is one of the most watched races in the country. both of the d.c. organizations are paying a lot of attention to this race. they're spending a lot of time working at this. we have snot seen that much money pouring in from those entities. they are both really focused on these two candidates. i think the republicans think they can win it. the democrats are. -- are desperateto hold onto it. they got this seat after 15 representation. >> local content vehicles are traveling the country, visiting committees and congressional districts as we look at some of the most closely contested house races. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our website.

>> there was a coin toss before the debate. in the end, deborah halvorson will be taking the first opening statement. >> thank you and good evening. it is great to be here. thank you to our panelists. i am running for congress because of my grand kids. i have one of them here in the audience. i want to work for a better future. we want to see that they will have the same opportunities that we had. we have achieved a lot of the past two years and we are saying the economy begins to recover. we have a lot more to do. we need to continue moving forward and we are seeing some signs of progress. however, if there is one person without a job, there is still a crisis and we need to do everything we can to get things back on track.

one of the things i have done to help is to hammer out a deal for the new -- there are a lot of jobs that are being created there. over 11,000 construction jobs and long term shipping positions. we need a level playing field for american workers create we need more tax credits for companies that are creating jobs in america. we need more american workers and american infrastructure. we need to end this unfair tax breaks that lead to companies like caterpillar shipping jobs overseas. these are the things that we need to move our country forward.

the fact is, our economy was driven into a ditch because of the policies of the bush years. is that my opponent policies would move us back in that direction. his vision would have dire consequences for our business because of the main purpose of his position being more free trade. they are the same policies that put our economy into the ditch. they're the same trade policies that have shipped our jobs overseas. they are the same tax policies that give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and to companies that continue to ship our jobs overseas. i believe we need to head in a better direction. one that puts american workers on a level playing field and the middle class first. that is the choice this november. adam's policies one has to go backwards to the bush years.

we have to go forward. we're digging out of this whole. i am asking for two more years to be your voice so that we can continue to move forward. thank you for being here. [applause] >> now for the republican opponent in the race, adam kinzinger. >> how is everybody doing? thank you for coming out. this is inspiring to me to see people engage in democracy. i know there is a lot of back and forth, al a lot of talking about the issues, but we have great respect for each other. that is what made our country strong in the first place. it is bad -- it is great to be back at illinois state university, where i graduated 10 years ago. let me quickly say, i am 32 years old. i know that takes some people

by surprise. when i was 20, i was elected to a position on the county board. i ran against an incumbent that had been there for a while. i realize that he had lost touch with what representation truly is. i ran for the position. perhaps we worked hard and a door-to-door -- i went door-to- door and i looked 16. i 153-47. -- i won 53-47. then i was driving to work and i heard that and plane hit the world trade center. i knew my life would never be the same. i responded to that by joining the united states air force. i began the process of becoming a pilot. i went off to train in the fall of 2003. it has taken me to iraq and afghanistan.

i remember flying one day and thinking, if i am willing to fight for my country on the inside, i have to be -- if i am fighting on the outside, i have to fight for it on the inside. we are almost 14 trillion dollars in debt. every child that is born today is born with over $40,000 in responsibilities to the federal government. we are approaching 10% unemployment. we were promised that it would not go over 8%. we have got a lot of challenges. in 2009, will we should of been talking about how to get people back to work, and creating an environment that allows the free market to flourish and allows the entrepreneur doors to have competent and go out and invest, we spent all of 2009 talking about health care. we had to do something about health care, but this was the wrong answer. what is most important is that all of these issues, you deserve representation.

you deserve somebody that is going to be acceptable and is going to have town hall meetings and stand in front of you and not be afraid to take your questions. we will have a great debate tonight. i am looking forward to representing you, starting in january. thank you. [applause] >> we are ready for the question segment of the night. i want to remind our audience and a candidate, each candidate is going to be asked a question. the first person to enter will get one minute and 30 seconds to answer. the possible get two minutes in response to that. we will start with our first moderator for the evening. our student body president has a question. >> thank you for showing up tonight.

it is an incredible experience for all of us. many economists argue that social security will be in crisis situation by the time my fellow students and myself are at the age to collect benefits. what changes would you propose for social security? >> thank you, david. social security is a guarantee that our seniors have paid into. right now, it is solvent for another 33 years. can you a imagine if our seniors money was in the wall street debacle? 40% of our women singers rely solely on social security. 33% of men. we need to make sure that it is there for them. we need to put together a panel, like president reagan did. he picked the smartest and brightest and those changes are only now taking place.

that is what i am hoping that president obama will do. he needs to put together that panel. we need to create more jobs. this is all about jobs. instead, we have policies that are shipping our jobs overseas. as caterpillar builds this manufacturing plant, and those people but are working at this plant, i do not know their jobs and people who worked in beijing, they are not paying into our system. we need to create jobs here is that the people working here are paying into our system. >> thank you for that. i find it very interesting. they call social security the third rail of politics for a

interviewed in front of the editorial board and she said, we have to be politicized this situation. both sides have to put their arms and about it. three days later, she launched an attack had a number of senior citizens talking about the fact and saying that i want to raise the retirement age and i want to privatize social security. let me be very clear. i do not want to raise the retirement age. i did not want to privatize social security. promises made need to be promises kept. i believe the congressmen said in words but not in deeds. we have to put our arms down and talk about how we make it solvent and a long run. -- in the long run. solvent. that would be the case if we did not rob the social security fund for the very beginning. the money is not there. we need to come to resolution. to even discuss options. i do not want to raise the retirement age. solvent in the long run. we need to understand that we have to come with real

solutions. not just words. >> would like to rabat's? >> i sure would. -- rebut? >> we have to entertain the idea of raising the retirement age. we cannot afford such largess. >> do you believe that the bush tax cuts should be continued? do you think they should be continued permanently? extend the tax cut and make them permanent. a democrat senator from indiana and jolie a believer -- joe democrats the said in a bad economy, which cannot raise

taxes. we are sitting on -- it is a second double-dip recession. i hope we do not touch that. we talked about coming back. i do not think we are recovering. to raise taxes in this environment and to take money out of under premier words, these are small business owners that employ a lot of you in the audience, it is an absolute wrong decision. many individuals filed their business income. now they are saying, the rich are those with overt to under $50,000. -- over 200 to thousand dollars. -- over $250,000. they are trying to figure out how they will make payable. the congresswoman said that the people that make over to under $50,000 our athletes and movie -- our athletes and movie --

are athletes and movie owners. that? should the bush tax cuts be continued? >> we need to put the middle class first as well as small businesses. in the last congress, we passed a bill that i was a co-sponsor of. anything under $250,000, you can write off immediately. we passed the small-business lending act, giving businesses access to capital. we could dig -- 50% of everything you spend invest in your business, a ride off on -- a runoff -- a right of your taxes. -- this is not the time to give paris hilton tax cuts. that is what we are doing. we really need to think about that. i am serious. if your business really wants to

invest in its business, we have given them the tax cuts to do so. that is what we want to continue to do and not extend them all. we need to make sure we're helping the middle-class. [laughter] >> part of the problem that we face in this economy right now, the problem that the economy is facing is uncertainty. we passed a health care bill that does not take effect until 2014. but we're seeing continued spikes in health-care costs. textsmall business owners are saying, i want to expand my business and invest in capital come my neck, but i think i will -- come in, but i think i will be charged more in taxes at the end of the year. what you have is that uncertainty. they have capital, but they said unbent.

-- they sit on it. january. these are real solutions. we have to eliminate that uncertainty. we need to get the economy rolling again. we do not need -- we need real plants. -- plans. i have so much uncertainty, i do not know what to do. when we talk about raising taxes, and a huge group of democrats and said that is the -- have said that is the wrong answer. we need to take that into account and looked at it. -- look at itwhat do we have to do to foster an environment so that people are hired back? >> you are listening to live coverage of the 11th district question. >> this question goes to deborah halvorson. do you favor the elimination of most earmarks in regards to federal funding projects? it's not, what types of projects do you believe are

appropriate targets for earmarks? >> i do not believe in the elimination of the remarks. i do believe in the way it -- i believe that they should not go to private companies, that they should only for not-for-profit or municipalities. for full vetting. i work with the one ablaze. -- one voice. it is a wonderful group. they get together, it is business, education, labor all coming together to talk about what is and where and for their town. -- what is appropriate for their town. they come to see me in washington d.c. and we talk about the things that are important. we are able to work with them on getting some earmarks. it's very difficult to get projects, especially now, but the republicans have decided that they are going to use the rhetoric and say, no earmarks. that just hurts the community. what i also believe is that you

do not take your marks, some -- earmarks, some bureaucrats in washington d.c. is going to sit there in office and decide who should get the water, the sewer, the infrastructure projects. my district is made up of a lot of little talent that the -- a lot of little towns that washington d.c. doesn't even know about. i am the only one that knows what is best for my district. as long as we have the proper reform and people who do it right, they are good for our district. we need to continue them and make sure they are down right. -- done right. >> adam kinzinger, what are your feelings? >> i do not believe with a broad brush we should say, absolutely no earmarks. we know this all too well here. a lot of growth projects and -- road projects and funding goes north because they have the political clout. i do not think there is

anything wrong with every year mark. -- pierre marc. -- earmark. we need to have aggressive earmarked reform. happened. a lot of earmarking still gets into bills that and are related to the bill at all. it is important to understand that infrastructure as well as a transparent environment for the free market to flourish and national defence, infrastructure is a very important job of the federal government. i am not against that. we need to have your market -- reform. we need to make sure that it is not an airport named after me or a statue in my honor or anythingsometimes there are in infrastructure projects on the campus of university of illinois. we have got to make sure that we are able to compete. infrastructure and education are very important. but we cannot have expanded-- we

cannot have pork spending. we need to have earmark reform. we cannot sit around and talk about it anymore and just assumed that it is going to get done. we need to really do something about it. >> do you have a bottle? >> i am going to clarify the fact that i am so happy that in the past two years, we've been able to do so much for the different towns. for illinois state university. if it was not for earmarks and stimulus spending, we would not have had a $22 million for the center here. we would not of that $1.2 -- have that $1.20 billion for high-speed rail.

we would not have been able to do the things that we've done here. i took it upon myself to make sure that the reform was done at my way, on the internet, and batted in front of everybody. we have already instilled that nothing can be named after anybody. those are good things that need to be continued across the board. >> the next question goes to adam kinzinger. diaz supports or -- the is support or oppose the health care reform? >> i oppose it. i believe -- when the republicans were in congress, we should have realized the fact that people were hurting and health care was getting out of control. we did not do anything about it. we stuck our head in the sand. into a dozen 9, we talked about health care. -- in 2009, we talked about health care. this bill was wrong. what this came down to was the government said, health care

costs to much money. we're going to write a big fat check to cover the cost of health care. the truth is, we need to talk about what we can do to bring the cost of health care down. been talk about where the government can step in. it is unconscionable that we could have health care reform without -- we need to allow small groups to band together. have the buying power across state lines. we need truth in billing. we need to put the consumer back into control of health care and make sure we're taking care of folks who cannot afford it. >> interesting. wow. [laughter]

i support the health care. i know some people say we should repeal and restart. i do not know anybody wants to go through that again. i believe in employment and -- and improve. we have brought to bear a plan had. we have also done things that brings cost of doing business down. every once to say there is no tort reform, but what is in its is the fact that the cost of bringing a case to court is so expensive. but we have done is we have put in there that every state needs to put together a panel, a peer review group, a certificate of merit, whatever it takes to make sure that these frivolous

lawsuits are not even brought to court. that is where you bring down the cost. not let these entire things come up to hundreds of thousands of dollars and then go before thei voted for caps in 2005. lawsuits to not the court. i had a mother called me and she said, i could cry. my little two-year-old was born without a kidney. only now, on september 23, will be stopped denying kids because of a pre-existing condition, is now going to get health care. those are the kinds of things that we need to be talking about. this is something that is going to be worked on for a long time. is going to be improved. what works, let's build on. what does not work, let's fix.

>> i understand the stories of people that are hurt and i am very concerned about them. that is why we need health care reform that can drive the cost of health care down. this did not and we are seeing it every day. i talked to small business owners probably every day that tell me the day just got a new health insurance bill and it is not looking too good. it is not looking good in the future either. i believe we need to fully repealed this health care bill that makes caps. sensethe day after it passed, i thought in my mind, when legislation passes, it gets more popular. i am going to do town hall meetings to talk about what is in this bill and what we need to do to rectify it. i thought it was going to be -- become unpopular. but the cries of appeal have just grown. i know that if we would have had town hall meetings in his district, you would have heard

people screaming and crying and asking for just some clarification. there was a lot of confusion out there. we just wanted clarification. i did close to 15 town hall meetings and had 3000 people at in the men gave people the opportunity to talk about what was in the bill. >> we have reached the halfway point in tonight's debate. i look forward to the second half. it is hard to miss any of the campaign ads from either side in this congressional race. deborah halvorson, some of your opponent's campaign ads contend that you follow speaker nancy pelosi's lead on all of your bills. -- all of your votes. can you provide as examples where you have not agreed with her? >> i just want to say it is my opponent wants to run against nancy pelosi, he should move to

california. [applause] i have endorsed by the nra and that does not maker to happy. i have not agree but to many of -- agreed with too many of the regulation bills. i represent all of the waterways in my district. there are a lot of chemical companies along the waterways. there was a chemical bill that came up and i was against that. there was the first wall street reform bill that i voted against because it really want my small -- will -- really lumped my small bank into the same bill with wall street reform. i was opposed to that. i wanted to make sure that we truly went off after wall

street. the second one did. there been a lot of bills -- if you -- most people have in their package, that i was banned by the national journal the a most moderate member of congress. if you take out -- the place where they give be a 92% is if you take into consideration the journal, the internment, let's -- of the adjournment, let's go to lunch, and the kinds of those. but if you take the sensitive about that we have, that is where you get the eighth most moderate member of congress. >> i do not need to move to california. i think nancy pelosi represents the liberal values of for a liberal california district just fine. ifs the 93% voting record -- that is one thing. she has voted with nancy pelosi wonder% and all of the big-- 100%. cap-and-trade is a competent destroyer. that is a terrible idea -- a terrible bill for manufacturing.

we had a stimulus bill that the congressman voted for that had $800 billion in the responsibility of our children and grandchildren. the money we're spending is not ours. if it is generations to come. -- it is generations to come. she voted for the stimulus, the cap-and-trade, we can go on and on. the fact is, 93% of nancy pelosi and her voting record is not representative of the values of the 11th congressional district. [applause] >> congressman, you have a minute and a half. >> when he talks about the stimulus bill, that included infrastructure. that included $22 million for multi modal. that included money for high- speed rail. it is about the same amount of money that my opponent wants to

add to the deficit for tax breaks. they did not live in my district. also, when you talk about energy, let's talk about the fact that we are right here in illinois state university, where we have a new renewable energy program degree. i think the students that go to school here want jobs. they want to go to school. we want to continue investing in clean energy. we want jobs here in america. i have more nuclear plants than anybody in the country. i s six nuclear plants.

i of six nuclear reactors, three nuclear plants. working co- chair of the energy task force. we want jobs here in clean energy and that is what the people who went to get a degree here at ellen yet -- illinois state university want, too. [applause] >> i would like to remind our audience, please be respectful of the candidates. after canada only has so much time to speak tonight. much time to speak tonight. >> the next question is to adam kinzinger. in regard to concern about unemployment rates and the fact that many people said they have lost their jobs, what would be your specific proposals for creating more jobs in the 11th congressional district, recognizing that this district has lost its economic diversity within its boundaries? >> here is the first thing. there is a fundamental disagreement between the two of us up here.

i believe that the president and congress did not create jobs. jobs are created in the private sector. unless we will open some kind of a facility that randomly hires everybody and puts them on a government payroll, the government does not create jobs. the private sector does. why are jobs being hurt? what are we losing jobs? why our business is not expanding? part of it is the lack of confidence. when you sit there and u.s. capitol and you are looking at future operations and you're because their government is out of money. streets. the cbo is constantly revising how much this will actually cost. when you look at the cap-and- trade bill, you look back and say, my goodness, you are going to tax the company that produces jobs and produces goods. you are going to tax them in a greater rate.

they will leave. we have to get rid of the uncertainty and get back to that believe that it is the american spirit that is why to make this economy recover. it is not constant pages of legislation out of washington d.c. >> what would be your specific plan for creating jobs? >> i took office almost two years ago, we will losing 700,000 jobs a month. after 22 months of job losses, we have created 863,000 private-sector jobs. people want to talk about how many jobs will lose. the state and local governments are doing exactly what they have asked -- but the bass and

to do. -- what we have asked them to do. my whole mission has been making things in america again. creating jobs in america. making sure there are manufacturing plants and they are energy-efficient so that we can compete. not allowed the american. of my opponents -- spirit -- instead of right here in illinois where we could be employing people with good paying jobs, not watching the unemployment rate go all out so that a few people and shareholders can be read. i want to make sure that we and development. country. i want to tell a little story. somebody called me and said, i went to an estate sale.

they held up this little tent thing. i do not even know what it was. the auctioneers said, here is a real antique correct it says, made in america. everybody in the whole audience hundreds of dollars. this is ridiculous. we need to get back to making things in america at and not giving tax breaks, your money, if to people who can build jobs overseas. invest in america. >> when the stimulus past, we were promised that unemployment would not over 8%. the cumbersome and herself said, we need to pass this bill because this bill will at 8600 jobs in the 11th congressional district. she is thousands and thousands of jobs in the hole.

the congressman also said that the stimulus is allowing america to recover. people would see that. i do not think there is many people of -- many of you out there that feels like the economy is roaring back right now. what do we get for it? high-paying jobs that are good independence. take spent nuclear fuel, reprocesses down and allowed to be used again. we have an opportunity with lot of people. we have the opportunity to play the role of a leading congressional district in

getting america to energy energy independence. >> this next question is for deborah halvorson. with the significant federal deficit that we're facing, what specific programs would you target to make spending cuts to reduce the federal deficit? what would you propose to generate additional federal revenue in dealing with the deficit? >> first thing, we need earmark reform. no big contracts. i signed onto a pay cut, 5% pay cut. those are all drops in the bucket. the only way we will get a true handle on our deficit is by

getting control of our health care costs. we have a huge disagreement here. i took that tough a vote because through bringing down the cost of healthcare. you and diane and anybody u.s. health care is already paying a tax of about -- you and i and anybody who has helped care is already paying a tax. they end up in the emergency room. and that is cost shifting because the hospital has uncompensated care. the cbo, that is our referee on cost to the government. anywhere from 100 to 130 billion dollars. after that, even more. >> thank you for that question.

we absolutely have to freeze the government right now. 18 months ago, the size of the federal government and expenditures have grown in double digits. at has grown at of control. at a time when you and your hallmark tightening the belt, you have to make some -- you and your whole are tightening the belt, the federal government is just writing checks. we have to stop that. when you have bureaucracy, nobody knows bureaucracy as much as the head of that specific organization. the republican majority in congress needs to hold a ... bureaucratic headcount to boil. that includes all levels of government and all areas of government. we need to cancel the unspent portion of the stimulus spending that is still obviously just of

dollars. [applause] i believe the health care bill is actually going to be a burden on the future of our country and we need to repeal this health- care bill that has passed and replace it was something that has made sense. those are some tough choices we have to make. we have to grow the economy. back to work so they can pay taxes. getting business is coming again so they can give revenues to the federal government. if you can freeze the cost of federal government right here and you can grow the economy and give tax revenue is increasing, we will eventually have a balanced budget again. that is absolutely essential. we have to grow our way out of. we have to get people back to work. we cannot sit around and talk about it anymore. [applause] >> the thing that bothers me most is what everybody seems to

have and that is a amnesia. [laughter] the a years of the bush administration that got us into two wars, and medicare part deprogrammed cost almost $1 trillion great none of that was paid for. if you have a tax increase or a tax -- you have to find a way to pay for it. that is what we are working on. i am looking forward to seeing what our deficit commission is going to come up with. we have to get this under control. [applause] i also want to add that there is a story that -- someone told me great a farmer.

when you serve as a member of congress and the lesson to people, you have stories. somebody called me and said, i haven't come of to under $50,000 for my farm and still been a $40,000 check from the government. there is something wrong with that. we need to do something about subsidies. they're really only need to go to the family farmers who truly are struggling, not some big corporate farmer. >> thank you. >> that is another place we need to cut. >> again, audience, i do understand the new promotional response. -- the emotional response. >> do you believe that age and governmental experience should be important criteria for voters

to consider? >> when we talk about the ads, a lot of you have not had the pleasure of seeing the ads. i think is very important to say, the congresswoman is the only u.s. not run a positive ad on herself yet. her first ad included -- i am a young man. i am not ashamed of that at all. the latest one, the social security one, which is misleading on my record and completely false. it also says, adam, you are a young man and you have a lot to learn. i do not want to learn the habits of washington d.c. of spending and avoiding and getting away.

do i think that you could come -- you could come into -- -- youth could come that. you are trying -- she is trying to say, you are a young guy. we are talking about bringing a fresh perspective to washington d.c. we are talking about a generation of people who were idealistic, the believe that achieve big things. we see a vision and a feature of a country that we believe in. that is the great thing about my generation. am i going to bring a new perspective to washington d.c.? you bet that i will. because [applause] >> i am sorry you have such a thin skin.

age. it is his vision. int we have are very different. we disagree that the fact of his goals are more free trade trade we would not have a problem with our economy if people would stop sending jobs overseas. i am sorry that we disagree on the fact that he -- i am just using his words. it is is a vision. we have a disagreement and our vision. i am here to protect our seniors. i endorsed -- i endorsed by the alliance for retired americans. they have endorsed me because they know i am the one that will protect their social security and medicare. that has nothing to do with its age. it is his vision. i will represent the people of this district. >> i appreciate that. her vision for the future, those commercials do not provide any kind of a snapshot for the vision of the future. they provide a vision of fear. it is politics of fear.

it is trying to scare people for not voting for you, but voting for somebody else. to say it -- i have a thick skin. i've been through lots. -- that have been through all lots. what we see is the politics of saying, look, i am when answering your citizens. they're voting for me by a seat -- by double digits. -- i am winning ceric -- winning senior citizens. they're voting for me by double digits. what do we have to do by peeling away that support? let's tell them that he wants to ship their jobs overseas. i do not want to ship jobs overseas. we want to create here -- jobs here in the united states.

we want to get people back to work. we have to figure out what is wrong with the environment that we have in the united states that is forcing jobs to go overseas. it is the extreme taxation and the cost of doing business and regulation. it it makes us -- in excess impossible for us to sell our products on the open markets. we have to figure out that environment and get back to the competitive nature that america is so good at. >> i do want to follow up with that.

i will give each of you one minute to do so. you made a specific allegation in a campaign at a new address it. -- and you address it. the cap on social security. he does not support bats. -- he does not support that. i would like for you to address that. >> i have his words right here in the paper. it said, social security will need to be capped at the rate ofyou cannot raise the retirement age right now, but some point, you'll have to. if we were to cap at the growth -- cap the growth above inflation for the upper income households, we could fix over half of the current adjusted shortfall. if we also think about indexing the normal retirement age to take into account increases and longevity, we could eliminate most of the rest of the shortfall. as it currently stands, the initial social security benefits of new retirees after adjusting for inflation increase at a rate of 1% a year. we cannot afford such largess. >> thank you. the congresswomen just said, she said that i said that we cannot raise the retirement age

right now. why do you have senior citizens on tv claiming that i will raise the retirement age? but to don't match. -- the two don't match. the first thing they said, congressman, i have seen the commercials on television. i am telling you comment he doesn't say that right here. what i was talking about our potential ways to fix gelber generations. -- vix young third-generation. we ought are paralyzing ourselves that we cannot even talk about the potential of how to solve these problems. it is politics of fear. we need politics of solution. >> thank you for clarifying that. [applause]

>> this next question is for adam kinzinger. do you believe that the current federal minimum wage should be kept at the same level? >> i believe the federal minimum wage, at this point, i would say that we should continue 8 where it is. as we get into more studies, and i've not releasing studies either way, the federal minimum wage is inadequate right now, then we should look and raising it. >> i was in the state legislature when it was increased. i know the candidate on the republican side want to decrease it too. they feel it is not in line. the people that are earning less, and minimum wage does not add up to much, those are the

ones they're putting their money directed back into the economy. there is not been any talk of changing the minimum wage. i do not deal with hypothetical. >> do you have a response? >> i do not. >> it is almost time for us to wrap things up. this will end the question and answer portion. we need to get onto our closing statements. closing statements will begin. we will begin are closing statement with adam kinzinger. >> thank you. when you look at what is going on and you look around and watch the news, and you talk about things that are happening, and everybody is concerned, we

have to ask ourselves, do we find ourselves at a crossroads? i think that we do. america finds itself with a decision to make. more government, more government spending, looking to the government for solutions for joblessness despite the fact that for years, we'll look to the government and it does not solve jobless problems. . .

this race is rated a toss up. ♪ >> hello and welcome to this forum for the canada is for congressional strict 5. it runs down through tempe.

i am robert leger. i work for the "arizona republic." joining me are harry mitchell and david schweikert. to get us started gentleman, what is the most pressing issue facing the residents of district 5? >> we will come back. >> jobs and economic growth. >> the economy and jobs. >> you also the same. what would you do about the economy? >> the premise of the question says that the government can fix the economy. the government can do nothing and let the market take care of itself or it can make it worse.

the government is to get out of the way. most of these issues are csed by government to begin with. >> when joyce and i were out walking door-to-door it is heartbreaking. you can see where people have left, their hours have been cut back dramatically, and i we're when the sa this community and have some options, we have to get some economic growth. it has been a couple of years of economic stimulus money and billions of dollars being spent. it has been a failure. we're going the wrong direction. >> will you do to put us in the right direction? >> the complete opposite of what we did. you literally only get a few hundred the -- a few hundred jobs here in there. you start to divide that cost

per job in it is crazy. could you imagine if we had used some dollars to incentivize small business with economic growth and change some of the regulatory environment that is taking so long to getting businesses to grow. even step up product-liability said that we can stop driving manufacturing out of this country. >> i have been a big supporter of tax cuts, particularly for small businesses. . the driver of this economy. 80% of job growth comes from small businesses. 63% of the businesses in this district are small businesses. we need to incentivize small- business is with tax cuts. >> what would you cut?

>> the capital gains tax and a couple of other taxes that i've proposed, one was the holiday for payroll tax. anything we can do to help small businesses grow the economy. that is important. do it congress did not do this before adjourning. why did the not convince them to put tax cuts in this? >> when we go back, the number one item will be the tax cuts. >> job growth. you are ready talked about promoting jobs. mr. kuhns -- coons, what can be

done out of congress to promote job growth? >> congressman mitchell is our demands and tax cuts. it's a ludicrous idea to take money and adding -- water out of one into the pool and adding it to the other and thinking that the water will rise. job growth is the effect of a stronger economy. you want to focus on strengthening the economy which will then create jobs. if i let my gas tank, i don't take a needle and push it to half. i'm going to focus on the cause. in the case of jobs, it is a strong economy. that will create jo. the best way to strengthen the economy is to keep taxes as low as possible and government

spending and regulation as low as possible. >> congressman mitchell. >> one of thimportant thing to create jobs and get the economy going again is education. it's a long-term goal but that is really important. i taught in high school for 28 years. 35 years here in this district. i entered stand that you need to have students prepared for the 21st century and a knowledge- based economy, and this worldwide economy. we have to put more emphasis on education. that is why i have been a strong supportern education. that's what we need. america has always been the leader in beg created. and we can do that through education. >> back to the jobs. are always -- jobs are always a lagging indicator. i appreciate what the congressman is saying about the special x cut but the reality

of it is, and unfair tax system has become perverse. think of the special carve out that the lobbyists have gone for this or that out -- or that group. it's time we pursue a flatter, simpler tax code. my wife and i run a small business. we're trying to create jobs. we do not know what your future is like -- and a good example is the health-care bill. we're being told that it is going to be devastating to our business and the reaching out and hiring of employees across the community. how you start to create economic growth when you have this overhang of what tax policy will be, what will health care policy, what is your liability? it is time for business to know where we're going. did in this latter task that you're tking about. your opponents have hammered you on the flat tax.

they say that you want a higher sales tax. >> no, ty are attacking me on a consumption tax, something called the fairtax. you call the reporters and the congressman knows this, two ars we discussed this, and we made it very clear -- you check up on the article -- i have never supported a consumption tax. [unintelligible] there different types of tax policy. one is getting rid of all the taxes and paying at the register. the other side is a flat tax, saying, what we goo one or two levels, leave some things deductible like your health care or your mortgage deduction, but it would simplify. the fact the batter is that that constant here and expires in two years, but we're going to start

growing our economy, we have to understand where we're going with the tax law. >> well with the effect of the attacks -- a flat tax pay christmas -- a flat tax be? >> people who are $35,000 or less literally get all the money back. from a tax burden standpoint, it would not be different from what you are today. but not having game the system all the time, and in other countries that have adopted a flat tax, they've seen their revenues go up dramatically because people are now playing by the rules. >> another mr. schweikert says that he wasor the flat tax, but he has endorsed the paul ryan plan which is a flat tax and a fair test. paul ryan's plan is so radical,

he could only get 13 republicans to sign on. when you say look at the flat tax " will eliminate deductions, or theairtax which will put a sas tax on everything that we have, food, clothing, medicine, whatever, everything -- these are very radical notions. he said that he was ridgy he favored paul ryan's plan which includes that. >> someone is finally stepping up and saying we have to be adults. whether you're republican or democrat, we know the entitlement system comes crashing down on us in a few years. list to some adults stepping up and think about how we're. fix this. i do not like it much of his social security plan. i think that it is a social

contract that we have to prect. i cannot go along with many of the things he has in there. >> you have supported in you said he supported paul ryan. >> find that quote. i like that he is finally stepping up and say here is a different approach. . down what you have been, but things are coming together. we have to take on this debt monster or we're going to lose our republic. we have to fix this, people. >> this idea of a flat tax would preserve the f deductions. >> my idea is that it will not preserve many of them. >> the flat tax itself does not call for any kind of deduction. it eliminates home mortgage deductions. >> mr. coons, let's give you a few minutes. >> if anyone is familiar with

libertarianism, i do not support any taxes. [laughter] [applause] and i understand the follow-up is to that, how you afford? if we had more time, we going to those. when you take someone property from them without their consent, it is called theft. you are stealing. if you take sometng from someone paycheck, you are still stealing. it does not matter what -- how you go about it, if you're taking something from someone else's consent, you're stealing. i would want people spending things on the things that they want to fund these. there is a lot of literature about how to supporthose things.

>> why did get the feeling that the libertarians always have all the fun? i have more anger about your vote for the natiol health care reform than anything else that you haveone. how do you defend that vot >> i know that we cannot continue with the status quo. every year premiums are going up, the cost of medical care is going up, not only for individuals, but for the businesses. it is not sustainable. that is why i voted. [applause] i think iis a born to keep in mind that there are portions that are now in effect. but the reason i voted for it, we could not sustain t status quo. >> the criticism is that it creates uncertainty and increases taxes on small business. >> 41, it was unsustainable the

fault -- because of the cost. people were taken off of insurance because they used it or because they have a pre- existing condition. these are important concepts which were unsustainable. the status quo -- the prices were continuing to go up. it is just gone into effect now. more will go into effect in 2014. the more people find out about it, that will see that there was good things in this bill. >> you have hammered mr. mitchell pretty hard on health care. some of the specifics in the bill, and in the prohibition on pre-existing conditions, stopping lifetime caps on usage, creating greater access

-- do you support those things? >> know, and if you go back to my time of 14 years in the state legislature, i actually chair the health committee. and we worked on the idea, how you define risk pool, and it might be important have a government insuran. there are solutions to this that do not change the health care system. how many of you have got a recent health care premium and seen dramatic increases coming at you? the wife and nine, a fact of the matter is that this health care bill with a $one trillion costs, we were told that it was the cost savings. now we know that just the opposite has happened. how many of you who run businesses or you're going to fill out 1099's for every $600?

you're watching the what doctors call away from medicare because of how many of those are going to be shoved into that environment in that system. >> what would of been differently? >> i would of said, here is our problem. people who are uninsured. i have people who are pre- existing. i have severe asthma. i grew up part of my childhood in an oxygen tent. there is waste it ways to take care of those populations without destroying the 81% of this district that actually likes their health care. risk pool, portality, the ability to buy across state lines, the individuals. the nice thing is that there are a number of democrats and republicans like me. i am understand the politics became overwhelming, but this bill is going to march is down to an economic flat line and a

lot of very unhealthy, unhealthy health care systems. >> your position on health care bill. >> i did not support this bill. it does not recognize t problem, the reasons that are causing problems as far as health care being inexpensive -- expensive and inaccessible. if you look it the reasons for the cost of anything in the market, demand is going up or supply is going down. in the case of health care, supply is artificially limited, usually by the federal government, that prevents access to drugs by not letting them released to the market when they are proven safe and other countries, by limiting the number of people who see doctors every year, by limiting people who have medical expertise to practice, if you know at a certain things but you are not lowed to -- those restrictions should be loosened up. the people know how to provide these services can do that.

and we can get rid of that artificial supply limitation, the price would drop pretty quickly. >> and never the issue mentioned earlier. -- on number of things that you mentioned earlier. right now this bill would allow states to enter enter -- into context by cross state lines. the daddy of doctors -- this also provides loans and loan forgiveness and encourages people to go into primary care and family practitioners. also a nurse practitioners as well as doctors assistance. there's a lot in the bill, a lot that i think -- it was mentioned that it would come up. i understand about the 1099's. i understand that i voted to repeal that but it passed the house.

by the time we come back, it will be gone. >> to the good congressman's comments, you heard him talk about some of the things that he liked in the bill. his version of them all require a government program to do them. we're going the other direction of saying, if i want to buy insurance from a company that alike because they have a great price and it is what i want, my state should not be putting together and doing it. i should be able to buy it. >> is right now the state's responsibility. the federal government does not do that. the states control that. they're saying, forget all this regulation. we will of the federal government. right now the states -- >> do you said it would be a bad thing? >> it may come to that part right now it is the state's

responsibility and i am not taking the state's rights away from this. [unintelligible] >> it is the state legislature there regulates what health insurance must cover. but it does the federal governments to regulate or not regulate across state lines. if they want to buy health insurance in iowa, that ishe interest of the federal gornment to determine, not the states. the federal government allows to do that directly without going to a different state, at that. bank, the state legislature produces a net producer -- produces a requirement of what health insurance must cover. it becomes onerous. >> we made a commitment that we were not going to be mean here. i want to be careful not to use sarcasm. but the fact of the matter is, i want to protecttates' rights but i'm going to do a bill that mandates that they, the state,

actually does the compact. does anyone follow the line of logic? the reality of it is, you're starting to see some cross-state purchasing because people are setting up some type of trust to do it. it is actually coming fairly healthy and competitive market. believe in government, top-down, management and control, or that markets properly managed and partly incentivizedill do well. you are on one side of the philosophy or the other. >> this bill does work with the market and it does encourage competitiveness. for the very first time, insurance companies will be competing against each other for all of our insurance. we do not do that now.

we will do that set up under the exchanges. when i taught high school, about every two yrs there would be an insurance committee formed by the staff and the faculty. obviously the younger faculty members one thing and the older back of the members one another. whatever the bill was, that was what they got. some of those people w wanted to things that they did not get will be able to do this in 2014. that is where we have competition for the first time among insurance companies, and that is where the market will really go to work. >> we could spend a full hour talking about that. the less go into the next question. social security -- headed toward

insolvency,ow will you address this? >> my personal philosophy, social security is a social contract. it is sething our government has made with us. it is a deal. we are americans and we stepped up and stand up to our deals. there are some things you and i could do to start working around the edges of social security, at least to move its solvency date hour. summer quirky ideas. people saying, would you allow us to buy your annuity? i gave you have the cash, can we remove you from the system? their creative economic such as th. but their way that it is coming even if you have a congress that steps up and ys that we're moving the retirement age and even going to move compensation or deposits into the system, the fact of the matter is, we're

heading toward the time were will be touch and go from revenues. my understanding is that this year and social security, if you get it checked, part of that money is being borrowed. it is the reality. >> what would you do the changing? do we need to raise the record retirement age? >> this is one produce step up and give both republicans and democrats stop using it as a knife in the back. it is the ultimate wedge issue. bush tried to create a social security commission and the democrats stabbed him. obama tried and the republican staff them. yes, it may be stepping up the retirement age. it may be buying out folks chortling tap their annuity bought out. -- who are willing to have their annuities bought out. >> social security is not borrowing money to pay anyone

says critic. social security -- i have social security and my wife has a security. i would not do anything to jeopardize security. social security has a huge trust fund. that is where the money's coming from. there is no borrowing from social security. it is just the opposite. the government barred from the social security trust fund. the fund that is their is in very good hands and is very solvent. to say that social security is borrowing money to pay benefits, that is absolutely false. >> it is headed toward insolvency. how would you fix it? >> there are a couple of ways. one is of course raising the retirement age. some people say that we should raise the cap on the taxes. to in the income tax? >> that is a simple way to do

it. they have to be on the table, and also the benefits. not shouldt what's be discussed is the idea of privatizing social security. i think that when you do that, you put it at risk. we saw what happened when people invested in 401(k)'s and the stock market fell down. i am for strengthening social security and for protecting it. i think that we're not in the process right now or in the mode of borrowing money to pay for social security. that is not what we're doing. >> support privatizes as a security? >> no, i do not think that it would work. >> i think social security participation, but paying into

enjoy informant, should be outlawed. -- but paying into it and drawing from it, should be outlawed. a lot of people here that have extra 12% on their paycheck will find ways to better ways to invested in the government is. and a lot of people would step in the matches. if you like the idea of social security, then keep paying into it. that would be completely optional. what happens is there would be a lot of market options pop-up companies would provide options and financial assistance as -- showing you how to invest that money get better returns. there would be a lot of competition. you would have social security and others in the program, and it is your money, you made it, you can decide where it goes. the idea that mr. schweikert and

mr. mitchell saying that it will fall apart and the other saying it is strong, it supports the idea that peoe should be of a put their money where they want. i cannot know if i trust this over here, i'm going to throw it over there. but it is your money in your choice. >> the congressmen and i are talking ound each other. the federal government covers our budget deficit, every dollar the federal government's stance today, they borrow 41 cents. there is not a penny in the social security fund. there is a lot of u.s. treasury bonds. over $2 trillion right now in the social security trust fund. it is all paid for. the money is there. it is not borrowed money. >> ok.

we're not one to settle that here. you've been playing ice around the table today. did you expect different? >> no, i did not. not beends, you're terribly nice to each other. >> i keep waiting for a television commercial that,. -- to come up. >> what is the most outrageous thing your opponent has said about you? to get the most at rich's claim so far is that i do not like puppy dogs. -- -- the most outrageous claims so far is that i do not quite put it does. thank heavenor channel 12 for doing their troops watched on saying, schweikert did not foreclose on a 12-year-old. schweikert never under the mortgage.

buy houses and fix them up and keep them as rentals. we thought that we were the good guys. but this is as modern politics. it is because of what is going on in this environment for the congressman to keep his job, he will destroy me as a person and not talk about his votes, is sponsoring. and the reality of this is going across the country, do not talk about your voting record, destroy the other candidate. in some ways, by the end of the election, they are disgusted with all of us. >> first of all, there's never been and had a mind about a 12- year-old. there was a press release and that was backed up by court documents. go back and check on the court documents about the 12-year-old.

we get calls continually in my office about people losing their homes. >> this is an opportunity for the most averages thing he said about you. >> -- what is the most outrageous thing that they have said about you? >> he wants to eliminate education. he wants to eliminate the department of education. working on the committees that i have been working on, transportation which is trying to put more money into education, so that it can be competitive, and the very idea of saying that we should eliminate the department of education, i think it is very offensive to me. >> he is not answering the question. >> let's move on.

>> i appreciate the congressman been willing to sit here and say he is not offended by our ads. but the partment of education, let's talk about the 21st century now. i am impassioned about getting the cash out of the bureaucrat'' hands and into our neighborhood school districts. the teachers tell me that they need the dollars not sitting in a bureaucratic draw in washington, d.c., that they belong here in our neighborhood. and the constant movement toward another program. how many of you are just frustrated with the bureaucratic paperwork that comes down on top of your school? >> if the department of education was close, arizona schools would lose money.

largest university in the country here. but more important, mr. schweikert talks about local government and local money. mr. schweikert spearheaded and sponsored opposition to proposition 100 that would put local tax dollars into the schos. he did not want the federal government to have any, and he sponsored proposition 100. i do not know where he is coming from when he says he supports education 20 does not want any federal dollars and certain doesn't want local dollars. >> i want the dollars here in my community. we do not need bureaucracy to decide. it is very simple. some people like to vote for bureaucracy because of build political power. i don't know why i cannot have th dollars right here in my

community. >> i'm not talking aut bureaucracy. i am tking about a local things on proper decision went under. -- proposition 100. people support education and in this day when we're competing globally, we have to have an educated population. we're at the bottom for funding per pupil. and here you're saying, proposition 100 which would put money into the schools. >> proposition 100 went into the general fund. what is our basic rule about raising taxes lawyer in the middle of a severe recession? you wonder why this recession ems to be never-ending? you wonder why your job prospects feel like they're getting worse and worse? because of these economic policies.

at some point, we need to start doing those things that grow the economy of we do those things that keep us in this mollet's forever -- malaise forever. >> you do not do that by cutting spending. >> let's move on. immigration -- we cannot have a forum without talking about immigration. both of you say that you want a secure border. i assume that you do do. define for me but a secure border is. >> i do not have bet on a website. [laughter] i like the idea of anyone who wants to come to the united states to have a better worker opportunities and creating jobs not well for opportunities, anyone here -- in which to be allowed to come here. maybe we'd do a criminal

background check on them to make sure that they're not criminals. but coming into the country should be very easy. if they're going to move here, the need to support themselves. they have to pay for -- they do not have options like welfare, unemployment, or things like that. they cannot come here and live off of the taxpayer. that is the biggest thing. that is one of the problems with illegal immigration. to the degree that it does happen, we make it so what does not happen. i know it is extremely difficult -- my wife is from canada, and it took six years for us to get her green card to be a lal resident. that is a long time. most of them do not have the option of getting a job for starting a business. that option does not exist for 95% of the people around the world. there is no option for that.

that is why people come across here illegally. there's no legal option. we need to make it so that people come here and support themselves, and it should be very simple for people to come here. >> a secure border. >> i support building the fence. mccain and kyl articulated in the plan. >> does that mean that no one gets across court to margin there is always going to be someone. >> what degree is acceptable? >> i have no idea. you're going to build a fence, you're going to dramatically cut down on illegal immigration and people dying in the desert, and then hopefully we get toward a

rational worker system and i and as does his job. -- ins does its job. >> right up there is about when thousands houses and phoenix because it is more illegal immigrants for here than any other state. the drop houses and the crime associated with that. we're going to see a drop in crime and the number of drop houses. there's a perception that people feel that they are safer now than they were in the past. that is when we can say that the borders secure. you're never going have absolutely, with no one coming across. we found some russians here they were arrested and deported. i think we've got to make sure

that we are fighting the crime. that is why i introduced the bill to stop drop houses in order to help ins and ice to have another tool so that they can pop -- stop the criminal element. that is when we will feel the importers are more secure. i voted every time -- one for defense and also to secure the borders, not only the fiscal fence, but others. , but 40% of illegal immigrants are people that overstay their visas. >> that is why we have to have a comprehensive plan. we just about have one with president bush a senator mccain, but it fell apart, and al it has been demagogue.

people that are willing to sit down and look at the issues and make that built work with a growing economy, look at the total issue and how we deal with the 40% of the people who came here legally and now have overstayed their visas. how should we? everyone understands that i am against any amnesty program. that i am opposed to. people to come here legally, there is a consequence for coming here illegally. they need to pay a tax and learn english and have a job and have a background check. those are all important to get the kind of people we want to come to work. >> somehow blockbuster video confine me when i have kept my dvd a couple of days to long. again our entire federal government cannot find people who are overstaying their visas.

there needs to be an investment in the technology of saying, the population coming here for a student visa or a vacation visa or humanitarian, and it is a systematic way to stay in the country with a great hope that there will be some sort of amnesty. it is the moment where you heard me say before, we need to dramatically stepped up the way ins does its business. >> deportations and up -- are at an all-time high. >> how many of us have families who are here and you turn around five years later and found out that you lost -- they lost your paperwork? why can the state put tse documents on-line and submit them securely? we need to make the system is

much more efficient. >> some leaders are saying that the law is making it harder to bring group leaders togher to offer solutions and the fifth district. once is that to has increase because of the bill. what you agree with chris. >> i agree that we -- some of this tourism is in the future. it is not all right now. it is when people plan their vacations. right after 1070 was passed in the was called for boycotts, i talked to the special business bureau. we have some of the premier resorts in this country in district 5. and i was told -- or asked by them, please do not even

mention boycotts. the more that it is mentioned, the more time that someone who has any position talks abo it, the worse it is for us. it has hurt their business. that is why -- not only the summer heat, but people not coming year as a result of the bad image because of 1070. >> you know the definition oa rogue state in this presidential administration is arizona. come on, that was funny. [laughter] there are some fine resorts here that are down because of political pressure. but much of this is because arizona has become a whipping boy for our friends across the country. they have used this as a wedge issue on immigration across the country. it is totally unfair. we have a lot of great people who have lived here.

after 1070, people were trying to step up and enforce what they thought was federal law, and yet we wake up one day being vilified as a state and as a people. i think it is totally unfair. >> it certainly is a possibility. i am notn the tourism industry and i do not know. that is something that makes a lot of sense, that it hurts the image of the state it has to do with the current economic situation. people do not have as much money and they're less likely to spend money on travel. that is the first thing about a lot of people would cut. it in the dream that which would grant citizenship to children who are brought here illegally, and they have to cut college or to military -- s or no? >> yes maybe, with some

changes. as written now, no. >> i think that the dream that -- we've got 12 years. >> what changes would you want? >> we have to be careful that is not designed to incentivize a family to take a child across the arizona test -- desert. the way i understand it to be written down,e could be waking up and collecting bodies in the desert because families think they can take advantage of it. i'm comfortable with parts of the military service. the other would redesign from top to botto >> anything you would want at your answer? >> to get on this path to citizenship, it is a student who has been here for a number of years. they have to come here at an early age.

all kinds of conditions like that. i don't think it would encourage people to sneak across the border in order to get a kid in school. >> this move on to energy. i found it interesting. congressman mitchell emphasize solar energy, and mr. schweikert, you emphasize drilling offshore. >> my approach is everything. i really do believe everything. it comes down to something very simple. at the time,he government has tried to pick winners and losers. remember alternative fuels here where everyone stop buying he suvs? it almost bankrupted the state. how many of you are still in base -- still investing in corn- based ethanol? it juscollapsed.

every time government steps up and chooses a winner and loser, he comes crashing down upon us. to create a clean regulatory environnt, off. tax system, and let the system choose the winners. >> i still do not understand how that applies to energy. >> right now we have a system where are producing -- i like certain types of incentives for alternatives. but if you say it is going to be seller, and tomorrow someone has another breakthrough, i guess what? the money going to the one that is not economically going to be the great winner. >> can you explain your support for drilling in anwar was a margin look at the description -- the gulf. we drove our drilling out into the extreme deepwater.

instead of areas where it was closer to shore where we could manage and control it. we could not put our environment risk. it is something we're one-half be rational. if we're using petroleum products, we would be better find them from a country that wants to hurt us? is irrational that we do that now. >> unfortunately we're still subsidizing oil and coal. become energy independent, we're going to have to create an investment alternative energies. not just sour. i say seller because that is what arizona should be, the solar capil of the world. we have a great deal of resources right now, but also their private sources doing it with algae that is why i voted

against capping trade. it was putting that heavy emphasis on coal and carbon sequestration which is a unproven science. but do not kid yourself, we're subsidizing coal and oil. if we're subsidizing anything, we should be doing alternative energy. the solar, wind, algae, certain and not the traditional products that we have now, which is harming our environment and is not good for energy independence. we cannot become energy independent with oil. >> i agree up with a couple of points. the government should not be picking winns and losers and we should not be subsidizing cold. -- coal. the government picked corn-based ethanol and we saw what happened with that.

i do not think anyone in congress has the knowledge to say here is the direction the couny should go andhere the technology should exist. that should be left to the market. if people knew what they were doing were able to invest or raise capital to research this things, then that would be of the figure out what is best. if i knew everything about solar energy and i can raise a billion dollars to continued that push forward, i might confine this good method of finding solar energy at to% of what we're doing right now. but if i'm not allowed to do that because the government has taken my money, that's not happened -- in in four years of congress, would voter you most proud of? >> the 21st century gi bill, i was the lead sponsor of that in the house. it is a program foreturning

veterans in iraq and afghanistan, a better program that occurred right after world war ii. it provides books, please, tuition, and living for those veterans. it is good for reservists as well as national guardsmen, and they have 15 years to use it. and if they do not want to use it, they can pass it on to their spouse for their child. right now there are 330,000 veterans taking advantage of this bill. a little over 1000 of them are arizona. the soldiers came back with leadership skills and with maturity. many of them never thought that they could go to college. nor did they ever think that they've wanted to. with the scholarships there, we're going to tap the resources that will create the next

neration. that's what i'm most proud of. >> what bodie you wish you could have back to do over? -- what a vote do you wish you could have back to do over? >> that is a difficult one. -- 1500 votes this year. so far, 1500 votes. i am not sure which one i would withdraw. >> you're not going to make a commitment. >> wt they did he get right crush margin -- did he get right? >> highlight the veterans coming home and giving them a path to university education. as someone who believes maroon and gold, like the idea of them being here on my campus. as of those that believe we're going to suffer for for many years, the veterans bill was

terrific. the health-care bill, i believe it is going to be -- we already know. we find out it is a trillion dollars. when it was voted on, we were saying that this would help small employers. now they're going to take huge numbers of their employees and ma them part-timers so the king get them off the books. it is becoming a disaster. i cannot say that i know the voting inside and out. ourublic. to the parts of the veteran ll as well. if the government is going to send people off in a dangerous situation, we should provide benefits for them when they come back. i would agree with you on the health care bill. i'the lead plaintiff in the cold water lawsuits. >> suffered -- covered a lot of

topics in this hour. very briefly in a minute, what is an issue that we have not talked about that gained a lot of attention that is important to you? >>he role of government to me is something that tends to get glossed over. we focus on specific things and what the government should do in terms of controlling this or controlling that. to me the role of government is that the most to protect our rights, make sure that you're not killed, what effort is, protecting individual rights the only role the government should have when it comes to a bunch of thingshat the government does, people do not think about whether this is a proper role for government. >> mr. schweikert. >> i really wish that there were more of an adult, it's recession instead of the political wedge game.

entitlements and debt. as a people, we are buried in debt. we've accrued over $14 trillion and a lot of organizations say that we have $100 trillion of promises that we have to come through on on the next 75 years. if you le your children, and you y're burying the next couple of generations and something that is unsustainable. it is hard to talk about. we're going to have to make tough decisions and it will not be good for their political careers. but we do not have a choice. if you love this republic, w have got to stop that thing away at the margins and say, we've got to save this republic. we soon will be [applause] >> the issue that i hear when

talking to constituents, obviously jobs, the economy and immigration, but more than anything else, people are upset because they feel that congress is dysfunctional. they feel that congress is not solving our problems. i think congress is dysfunctional. the whole idea that we are not talking in a civil way that everything needs to be done along party lines and that it will are bickering -- that people are bickering. why can we not just get together? i taught school for 28 years and i have had a number of students come up to me and ask me how like where i am. i tell them that it is not what i thought. knowing what you know now, would you teach you differently? i say no. because i might make senate's --

66 cynics of everyone. >> we are at the end of our hour. i promise you could make a little spiel about what people should vote for you. this is the one time i will hold two to a time limit. mr. mitchell. >> a with a you for your facility and having this form. i think this is a great way and a very important part of this discussion. we face a lot of challenges. i just got to talking about getting people together. tempe, ariz. has been my home. i will continue to do what i think is best in this district. i am never going to be speaker of the house.

i will never be -- never be chairman of appropriations or ways and means. i have had my career. i want to serve this district and the state. i appreciate your support. >[applause] >> and when you all get some credit, you have all been wonderful it polite and we have all done good, here. thank you to the republic for having us here. i ask for your vote because i believe i am a serious man ready to take on serious problems. the fact of the matter is, look what has happened to our jobs and our debt in our community. we are burying ourselves. this cannot be the direction. it is both republicans and

democrats because none of them seem to on a calculator. the fact of the matter is, at some point, if you love this country and you of this republic, you cannot keep doing what we are doing. in the last two years, we have increased spending 21.4%. how many have got a 21.4% increase isalary? we have to deal with everything from iraq to that. thanyou. [applause] >> i also want to thank the city of tempe for allowing a libertarian in this. i always liked to have an opportunity to talk about new ideas, which is pretty much what i am running. i have noticed that people tend

to act based on what they think, so what i try and do is change the way that people think. i tried to put new ideas out there so that people look at things in a different way. one of the other reasons is because i think that people should have more choices. the more people that we can have on the ballot with different ideas, i do not see a lot of different ideas. [applause] >> thank you all for being here. thank you for coming. thank you for watching at home. remember to vote. [applause]

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. i am not a lawyer.