[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you are watching c-span, created by the nation's cable companies. here is what is ahead. a look at money and politics, hosted by the committee for economic development. that begins at 12:20. on c-span2, the focus is on u.s. college graduation rates, currently 12th among 36 developed nations.

and later we will show you u.s. and the leader speaking about u.s.-india relations. >> presidents do not manage crises, they exploit them, to build this emotional bond. lincoln, in the early months of his presidency, churchill, the battle in britain, that is an example of leadership, and we have not seen that from recent presidents. >> the obama presidency this weekend, midterm elections, and politics in america. >> a discussion now on the upcoming 2010 elections now only five days away. the u.s. chamber of commerce

institute for legal reform posted terry mcauliffe and ed gillespie. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> all right, as our panelists get my stuff, i'm just going to give a short anjo. we are headed into the last panel today. it's an exciting one. we think our previous panelists. do they really have the media topic and there's a lot more that we hope to do on the topic of the aica. our final panel of the day is the subject is on the minds of every single person in this room. if not in this town and across the country. in less than a week, voters go

to the poll to elect one third of the senate. the entire house of representatives, 37 governors and state duchess features in all but four states. with the current mood of discontent across the country, many observers are predicting the elections results in major changes to the composition of congress and state houses from coast-to-coast. the results can we expect on election day? and more importantly, what might happen after the election? while the president and congress find areas of agreement? will be noto gridlock or confrontation for the next two years? are to panelists are uniquely suited to answering these about the political landscape. they are both longtime political strategist of their respective party. our moderator today is also a very experienced observer in washington.

morton kondracke has been a journalist for nearly 50 years, th 45 of them in washington. he is currently executive editor and columnist for a walk on the paper and has previously written for a variety of publications, including "the wall street journal" and the new republic. he's also a familiar presence on television, serving as the regular political commentator on the fox news channel and previously spending 16 years as one of the original amos on the mclaughlin group. please join me in welcoming mort and he will introduce the panel. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] well, i'm delighted to be here. and if you ever watched mclaughlin or fox news show that not only glad tobe here, but i'd be glad to be anywhere where i can finish a sentence without being contradicted. today i get to play john maclachlan actually, but in the spirit of fox news of course i will make it fair and balanced. i will not spend a lot of time

introducing our two panelists. but th are in fact two of the most able, articulate and able lyrical prose and the united states of america, especially in washington. they've both been chairman of their respective party committees. they wer simultaneously chairman of 2003, 22,005. and you could barely turn out a sunday morning talkshow tv without seeing them together. and you will get a full impression of a washington is like from the two of them because they actuay get along together. to go in alphabetical order, ed gillespie in 1994 was press secretary to soon-to-be house majority dick armey and helped write the contract with america. he worked on george w. bush's presidential campaign in 2000. he was chairman of the republican national committee

from 2,322,005, helping president bush get rid of the republicans keep control of the house and senate. he was counselor in the bush white house in 2007, to 2009. and he wro a book called wendy wright, campaign politics and conservative policy and is now co-organizer with karl rove of american crossroads, which is allegedly spending 75 billion secret money to elect republicans or should i say democrats. he's also the chairman of the republican state leadership committee, which is trying to elect as many state legislatures and down ballot seniors and state so as to secure up strong future for the republin party. terry mcauliffe. if ed came up to the political route to the top of the message god, terry came through the

finance row. back in 1980 and 81, he was the finance deputy for the democratic national committee. he was the finance chaman for gephardt in 1998. he was national finance chairman for president clinton's reelection committee in 1996 he was chairman of dnc from 2000 went to 205 and rows a total of $570 billion getting the democratic party out of debt for the first time. he was chairman of hillary clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. you ran for governor in 2009 and right now he's in virginia. right now he does not havean american cross counterpart, but he's told me he's doing his darndest to help elect democrats and he too is the author of a book, b party: my life among democrats, candidates, presidents, donors, act that is,

alligators and other wild animals. anyway. >> was yours "the new york times" bestseller? >> the "washington post." >> there you go. [laughter] >> for hardback nonfiction political. [laughter] see i told you, no styling he. i'm going to ask each of the panelists, starting with ed, what is going to happen next tuesday and why? please confine your answer to three minutes. we've got a lot of ground to cover. >> republicans will have a very big day. i'm afraid to get my hopes up and say just let them go. the fact is when you look at the dynamic, the congressional ballot averaging around plus seven right now. that's huge for republicans. the president is upside down on the job approval ratings. when you look around the country race by race, it's clear that we're going to win control of the house of representatives, north of 45, seats in the house.

it included close in the senate, not likely to gain a majority in the senate. d say around seven or exceeds likely in the senate. perhaps just as importantly when it comes to the implications for 2012, probably about eight governorships. a lot of them among the great lake states, battground states for the electoral college. and then he mentioned their leadership committee which hopes to elect house and senate candidates in the state legislatures. and i think we'll probably make it not double-digit backing of state legislative changes as well, which is important down the line because of the redistricting that could replace after this election cycle. those legislators cycle selected thisear which are the congressional district line and i will have an effect on control of congress, not just this year, but for a decade that could affect 15 to 25 house seats for the next five cycles. so that's what's going to come. the wise because the american

people believe this president and the democratic congress has overreached a lot of voters who will come out and vote republican this year, voted for barack obama in 2008, but they thought they were voting to change washington. they didn't think tey were voting to change america and their say in this administration and this congress try to change america to move us away from the free enterprise system to more government control of our economy and the resistance to it. they're resentful of the reckless spending, the government controlled health care taken of the student loan industry, trying to impose costs on energy and the tax regime and they reject and republicans to washington to check on that. >> first of all, thought to be here at the chamber of commerce. i'm just wondering which countries will pay my fee. china, saudi arabia. it is great to be back in the chamber here. i think of the senate is probably somewhere around six or seven feet.

i think most people would agree it would be very hard for republics to gain control. we're going to win west virginia and connecticut has been virtually almost impossible for the republicans to gain control of the united states senate. patty murray's up, barbara boxer is up, very tight in nevada. very tight in pennsylvania. at a site that. colorado, everyday candidates back and forth. we could end up somewhere around republicans may be 47, maybe 48. >> unit a sickly agree -- >> forty-eight and 49. >> we could win kentucky. that could be a pickup for us in kentucky. friend paul versus jack can wake our candidate. i think in the house, the number is not 39. it's 43. there are four races in the republicans you can see they're

not contesting for pickups we have. i would say 43 is a lot of seats. i think were looking somewhere anywhere from 35 to 45 seats. i think a month ago people were talking 50, 60, 70. that's gone. i think what she's seen haen -- the key party has been helpful to the democrats obviously it is saved as siegenthaler, which s a very testy for us. harry reid is very competitive because sharon and the one that seats up there. the tea party has been helpful to us a a lot of people went out to vote and show their frustrations in the primaries and understand when a canddate wants to privatize social security, get rid of medicare as we kw it. there's some very extreme views which is outside the mainstrm of america. i think the democrats -- president obama has been out campaigning. tens of thousands of people have shown up in israeli. you can see the enthusiasm coming back as wget closer. you kno nothing the best closing argument was opposing. i don't think independents

really care. they think everybody in politics is corrupt, doesn't really matter. is that we can't allow them to come out and still is foreign money. so maybe it helped us a little bit. i would just caution everybody in this audience, we don't know what the turnout numbers will be. this is a very unique collection. when i'd be shocked if we can't control the house by one or two seats? no. would i be surprised if we lost by five or 10? no. but i think over the next week's listings will crystallize and come together. the last thing i will say, early coproducing the stories in the press today. early vote is up to the democrats. we're doing better in the states and people thought comparable to a six and they were in the house and senate. if you look at our numbers in colorado and other states, were doing better than the republicans on early though. so we'll see what happens. >> were you in the a chewing wood on the cusp of losing control of the congress? went from a democratic

standpoint -- nancy pelosi is proud. she says repass healthcare. we pass a stimulus package. the white house as we inherited this terrible economic situation and were not back yet, but things are turning around. credit card reforms, student loan reforms. why is the country angry? >> clearly in the midterm and the first-term come you're always going to lose seats. i would occur at the point though we haven't put our best foot forward. if you believe the reports of going out the door the bush administration. our economy was teetering on the world economy was teetering president obama got in. he did finance reforms. whatever you want to say about health care, he ran saying he would pass health care. i know why this is a shot. we've got to cover 38 million americans. by the democrats after they pass it as their top defeated to consummate time talking talking

about it. i'll be honest, somewhat baffles me. if you can't defend it then you shouldn't have done it. president bush has a lot of great things that he's been able to accomplish. what did i say? yeah, president obama. i'm trying to help eddie. [applause] there's some things i didn't agree with, t.a.r.p., i hate bailouts. and business. i've created thousands of jobs in my life. i hate to see bailouts. if you look at the numbers today of the t.a.r.p. in the stainless, maybe in a $14.5 trillion economy, for lose $50 billion to save millions and of jobs. but you've got to explain that to the public. we have not done the job. >> not a messaging problem. >> a sort of go hand in hand i would argue little bit. the substance has been great, but they haven't been able to talk about it. let's not forget everything over this is horrible. we 50 million people out of work. we took a 125,000 jobs to keep up with pulation growth. we are still in the midst of a

horrible economy and make a long way to go. until you fix it, people be frustrated, angry and mad. >> ed, do you think obama is truly antibusiness or even more socialist? i mean, he didn't go for the public option on health care. there's no card check back a pass. their attacks to the stimulus package and on and on. they passed a small business aid will and no local rule in the financial regulatory, so why does he have this reputation of being antibusines >> effective if you look at his agenda in the newsroom commies constantly drivingobs and creators in our economy. he's constantly trying to have the decisions for millions of americans for the free-market system but the decisions of people at washington government and to stay here is where it's going to be. make a decision for your relative to your health insurance, so you're going to buy with your own money and

here's the kind you're going to buy. and the fact is one of the reasons for terry's point, they have a messaging problem. the messages have proven to be false. we now have the president after ving spent a trillion dollars on the senate pckage, high times to hear going to shovel ready project. and unless a naysayer timepieces now, there's no such thing as a shovel ready project. tonight he tells a trillion dollars later and $3.4 bllion increase in e naon debt. they said they were going to bannock o-oscar down. how many times did we hear that? if you like the insurance have, you can keep it. no, you can't. the fact is you're not going to have the insurance guy. and the fact is for many private sector beneficiaries, they are going be moving into public heal pla. there are disturbing to see it. they not only been the heart federal cost down. we know it will increase the deficit, but your premiums are going up because of all of the

mandates, the cost of the mandates being spread to those worthy of private insurance. so they've got a real problem, not just in terms of the message. if god and in terms of policy and that's what their pain, including the fact of the antibusiness point. investors and small business owners are going to get hammered on january 1, 2011. they will be part of the largest tax increase in american history. that's going to cup on top of all mandates. it will come on top of all the regulations. there's a regulatory on-site right now that's only going to get worse i suspect over the next two years. so yeah, he's antibusiness. when you're the president say profit, he often spits it out. it's like clearly it is an evil, evil things, people making a profit. and so, his entire administration -- >> i've never heard them use the word prophet. >> release may, he doesn't sing it. ere's nobody better was ever been in the private sector creating jobs.

>> let me ask you this. what would obama have had to do differently in order to get some republican support for the stimulus package, for health care reform, financial regulatory reform and so on. was there every chance that he could have attracted republican vote and if so, how? >> i would say at that moment he came and went at a time when he met with republican leaders in congress to talk about stimulus. and they said we have some ideas would like to put on the table. in his response to them was i won. go pound sand. we'll take care of this. and now his responses you can sit in the back of the car. and the quiet back there. don't make me stop the cars. so it's pretty clear he has a pronounced disdain -- you know, what is working for president bush in the white house and the speeches would come across my

desk, if the speechwriters had put in the announcer tried to put in the mouths of the mouth of the president of the united states a personal attack on the senate democratic leader or the democratic speaker of the house, as opposed to challengingthe policies to, you know, have a person attack against a member of congress, the president would've stricken from the speech would've been pretty irate that it ever got to us does. not to mention, by the way -- i couldn't imagine president bush handing in the speeches they make sure you mention bob shrum. he got the president of the united states talking about karl rove, beverly? is talking about a political operative on the other side of the aisle? is unbecoming of the oval office? that is where they are. it's clear they're not interested in hearing republican ideas are working across the aisle. maybe that will change when there's what i think a republican majority in the house. but frankly i doubt it.

i think they're more likely to go to the congress? we don't need no stinking congress. we're going to regulate and do things to the epa and department of labor and plenty of hhs. will ena policies that way. >> what is your read -- i mean, you're an old friend of bill clinton. clinton when he got defeated in 1994, famously famously triangulated and put himself between the republicans in the commerce and the democratic liberal. what is obama going to do? should he triangulate? >> first of all, we've got to get through the upcoming elections. >> assume that at this rate. >> let's be clear. president obama is one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet him and that's why his personal pervade the ratings are so high. he came to washington, tried to read. from day one the republicans didn't want to work with him. from day one they said we're not going to do it.

let's be clear on the environment. today. it's not what the republicans are gaining. it's not the brand of the republican party today is gaining popularity. the democratic party is still higher than the republican party. tom davis, former member of congress from northern virginia referred to republican platform in their message that came up with a plan. finally they were answered to wed go put out and how they lead america and everybody attacked it. so let's keep this in the framework. you have today people very frustrated. we are in power today. listen, president obama ran on an agenda change. he said i'm going to do with health car we're spending 70% of our gdp are the closest country today is canada. the deficit is runni in health care. something had to be done about health care. your business on wall street are yet to do aboutthe republican subculture with health care,

retail financial reform. full repeal of the student loan reform. the student reform plan will reduce our deficit is $60 billion. students now can get a fixed term for 20 years. we want more of our children to be able to go to college and afforded. >> so if you were advising him, you say straitahead you don't have to compromise with the republicans now? >> i think president obama will give us credit for that. he's going to do what he thinks is right. we he elections. if you don't like it, happens on election day. i will be honest, and the environment erein come with a horrible economy facing today, republicans could've done a lot better. one of the biggest problems they had as they recruited candidates producing a lot of candidates in the last two weeks of the fallen through the cracks, one guy in ohio to pay 15 million in taxes. you've got a guy in the four to 25th. good candidates out there were not the best quality candidates.

so if you look at the upcoming elections, it is a frustrated, angry electorate. en they try to tell people is this is a choice selection. publicans are against every single thing. here's a president obama and his choice. don't wake up the day after the election and got some of the christine o'donnell in the united states senate. i'm talking about the issues that we shouldn't be part of mainstream america. they face unemployment compensation is unconstitutional. their issues i don't think mainstream america are in and people are beginning to come out and say why is the enthusiasm gap getting closer? >> what is obama to go to turn this thing around. i mean, i don't know how many foreclosures are going to be in fragmented. the housing prices are continuing to go down. by one estimate, we were going to have to create 200,000 jobs a month for five years to get back to 5% unemployment. so that's not happening. nothing like that is happening.

so how does obama turn this thing around? i mean, his popularity is sinking. you think that it's only because because -- because republicans are going to look so bad? iveco turns it around? >> let's be clear. this exact or president clinton was then-president reagan were both in worksheet. president reagan was in much worse shape than were president obama is today. and both president clinton, president reagan a landslide victories. >> because they have economic recoveries. we have got to invest in small business. we've got to invest in manufacturing. republicans are against the manufacturing bill. we have to put more into green energy. i'm chairman of a huge green car company. this was a million dollars to build hybrids and electric vehicles. we are getting beaten by china, saudi arabia and south korea. we have come this one's going to

elegies. or for that. we have to create jobs for children. republicans are against that. they found on the planet where they want to take america. it w not only criticized by their own party, and was referred to as dog food. we've got a plan that is going to continue doing what he's doing and it takes time toturn this economy around. when president bush stopped talking, we were losing a hundred thousand jobs per month. we face now are creating jobs. not as much as we need, but at let we've turned the curb and were moving in the right direction. >> obama says, and i heard terry say that the republicans have no answers for native americans problems, they're just going to do the same thing that president bush did and the republicans did before that. cut taxes for the rich and deregulate and all that stuff. and the fact is, it is a matter of fact per capita income, immediate income of america did not rise during the entire decade of 2,002,009. that's the bush era.

i've seen one estimate where if you discount the consumption that we based on people taking second mortgages on their houses, refinancing their houses, that consumption but it actually had a growth rate of over 1% a year during the bush years. so are they going to do the same thing? and why should we expect any different results in the next -- with republican congressmen e had. >> a couple things. i understand from 2001 to 2000 from your starting with then-president bush commended inheriting recession at the beginning of his term that was then, after some brief period of growth, the attacks of september 11 had a devastating effect on our economy and we had to reconfigure entire government to respond to that. and of course, we also had as a result of the tax relief the president passed, 52 months of

uninterrupted job creation. that's longest run of job creation in american history. and the fact is in seven, with the tax cuts because of the economic growth and the fewer unemployed, we have more revenue coming to the federal treasury ever in the history of the country as well. at theend of it, the housing crisis, which by the way big factor in the housing crisis which led to the economic crisis, financial sector crisis with the failure to reform fannie mae and freddie mac to the bush administration promoted thatbarney frank, president obama, then senator obama and others come across that rejected, would not enact it would not pass those reforms resulted in a severe economic downturn obviously especially in the financial markets. so if you look at those policies and republicans have new ideas proposed to new policies, rticularly into the response is doneness office. the tax relief are talking about

and that is going to go on january 1, 2011. we'll see the economic growth resulted from it is a tax increase would go into effect. without actually spur economic growth? i don't think so. >> let me stop you there. but what happened to the link that likes to thik of it extended were temporarily extended or go out of business? you seem to think they're going to be eliminated for everybody. >> what i knows that's what happens without any action. what the congress did, the had turned without. you wonder again in terms of being antibusiness, if you're anti-business owner come here it is -- what is at october 27 today? ito moocher taxer will be a journey one, 2011 and you're supposed to hire somebody in the best? you've got to be kidding me. it was one of the most irresponsible things for congress to do. were going to leave town. we'll get to later. maybe williford at in the

weather supposed to kick in. so i don't know what they're going to do. are they going to try to protect the child tax credit and some other things, but let the small business owners and investors in terms of dividends and capital gains? i don't know if you are his peers that's part of the problem. >> terry, what would you guess congress is going to do? >> they've clearly got to come back and get the budget resolve. with the budgetary issues to do for that sort of makes my point. he did not have one thing the republicans would do. it goes back to the eold tal about txes. bush makes a good job is tired eight years he created jobs. he created 27.2under his new year's. i think president bush for two years of surplus and a $5.6 trillion surplus when he left office. i mean, we have a plan with president clinton. >> obama there are bush?

>> i've got bush on my mind. the difference between bush and clinton is 22.7, but a significant difference between the two. they're going to have to do something because we have to get the budget done with. if we lose the house, you know, i don't know. nancy pelosi calling everybody up saying you have to come back to vote. i don't know. >> l. be interesting. >> the secretary's right, my instinct was to spring up curveball and your comments about president bush's term. in terms to the pledge of america, there's a lot of progrowth policies that they have put in to help small business owners to repeal and replace health care reform so we cannot small business risk pools, so that we cannot liability reforms that will take out a lot of frivolous spending in the health care system. will keep some of the things in the health health care bill t

they supported in the first place, but will repeal things driving up the cost of the things that are affecting job creation. and yeah, they would keep the tax relief in place. >> republicans. >> if you can come it would be hard to do. we try to get a permanent -- when we had control of the house and the senate in the white house and wasn't able to be done because you have the rules in the senate and the five-year tenure budgeting window. that said, yeah, we shouldn't be punishing job creators at the time were trying to create jobs. >> and the ultimate optimist, but i do worry when we had to compete globally with all these countries moving ahead on green and clean technologies and everything else, nomatter what we say it's going to be very close in the house and senate. if we agree the senate probably is going to say that democratic control, i hate to say this. i don't know if you see largest legislation in action the next

two years for us to be competite. i don't know h much is actually unfortunate for a nation that time we should be gearing up. i worry will be putting our best foot forward globally. >> ed, let ask you about the secret funny that you're having to raise. is 75 million incorrect figure for american crossroads? >> first of all, to be together with the chamber again the last time i was together with the chamber was in a democratic national committee at. so it's good to be here in person. the fact is the ad was inaccurate and as for those figures, i'm fully supportive of americans. i think we've made up for some time on the conservative side of the political spectrum to counter what they have on the left and have had recycles. you know, we did not adapt to bipartisan campaign reform act on the right the way the left it. or the because the left promoted in there ready to go want to pass an array to post it. so i felt we needed somebody

like american crossroads. i'm not actually on the board. i'm not a consultant. i have no formal affiliation. i think they are to give to it. i give informal advice and i encourage people to serve on the board. i do know the answer to the question. they're doing very, very well. they've done much, much better frankly. the pace quick to quite a bit after president obama and the democratic national committee attacks them because they got a list of e-mails and a lot of hits on the website, saying we haven't heard it until president obama mentioned it or the dnc mentioned in the picked up about $20 million from the time they started to attack. so i'm all for it. i think it's a great thing. i chair the republican state leership committee. we disclose their donors to the irs and we hope in state house and senate races. but to the broader question about the secret money, you

know, this is not new. in fct, this has been going on -- this is the third cycle now since mccain-feingold went into effect. as rnc chairman, he will remember, i oppose mccain-feingold and said this is a mistake and challenged it in supreme court. it's going to diminish the roles and the parties and enhance the roles of the outsideroups and is going to diminish transparency with the party doesn't comply with. >> before citizens united, didn't everybody who kick didn't have to disclose? >> we knew about george stein maus and move on.org, didn't we? >> how about the fact in 2000 come to you may remeer a very nasty ad against george w. bush as governor. >> naacp. but we know it came from the naacp. >> we know the money came from american crossroads pearman of the money came from the u.s. chamber of commerce. it's all undisclosed. [inaudible] it's been going on for a number

of cycles. what happened, to answer your question, on the conservative side there has been a mentality, well, we don't like those things. anwe're not going to do that. and they've developed a huge gap. either way, just in terms of the spending in the psycho it was reported today in the publication did alysis of all the spending and the left and the democrats have so far spent $180 million more than the right and the republicans in this 2010 election cycl. so this is -- you know, this is all about president obama laid down the predicate that they lost to the house again. in big numbers in the senate and all these governorships and state legislative chamber ships because we got out. one, they're not going to get outspent. i've said all along will be posted. in this election cycle than we have been in past cycles when

the right and republicans versus the left and democrats. but will still be outspent, our candidates. but they'll be close enough in the wind is so much utterback said $180illion for the left to spending to elect democrats won't overcome the wind in their face. but the fact is those are the rules. but the law of the land. >> republicans have been saying forever that were against campaigninance reform. it interferes with free spurge announced that. every sent out to be disclosed. so there was a bill that chuck schumer and kristen holland >> the democrats editorial committee. >> okay -- >> it exempted the unions. >> some of that money is okay and some of its not. and the money that helps elect democrats and those that helps republicans is not.

>> i mean, if it were an evening playing field and the units have to disclose much as corporations have to disclose, would you be in favor of a disclose facts? >> i would be in favor of going back to what we had, which is the parties who were responsible and they were transparent and they paid a much bigger role on the election. i think that was healthier for the process. someone he was unhealthy for the policy. "the new york times" and cbs news and others want to tell the voters, here's what you need to know. we don't need any of those commercials if we don't need any of that panel. we'll tell you what you need to know about the issues and you can vote based on what we tell you. so no matter what it is -- the campaign-finance reformers will not stop until they take the capacity for candidates, particularly conservative candidas to indicate difrent views directly to voters to make them how to communicate through

the filter that is by and large helpful to liberal democratic candidates. >> anybody out there all over america and everybody in the audience who's got a raisein their states knows this, as they are being inundated with bad. 95% of them negative, beating up on the other candidate to the point where the public is sick of it. and i just wonder, you know, using the burger king donald's analogy, if everody was -- a burger king was attacking mcdonald's and mcdonald's was attacking burger king, people would make hamburgers. so aren't you undermining respect for politicians ad politics with this unstoppable negativism in these ads? >> that's a diferent question and campaign-finance reforms. that assumes that there were campaign-finance reforms set up outside groups, they wouldn't be running negative ads. and i suspect they would. so the question about negative

ads -- nobody likes negative ads. but don't confuse attitudes or behavior. negative ads, if they are, i believe geared towards policy in differences in terms of where one candidate stands versus another as opposed to personal attacks and that kind of thing, they affect behavior. and they are going to be part of the process. and portray negative behavior is accepted if he voted for a tax increasehat would impose a tax increase. or kerry would say they want to privatize social security. we want to defend social secuty. but the negative ad. ..

into a political party it's disruptive and it creates friction. i would feel myself i am a party switcher, i was a democrat in the 1983 when i went to work for a democratic member of congress in florida. terry and i are in similar background, irish catholic northeast, was born in new jersey, 1961, the year john f. kennedy was sworn in as president. the almost stand democrat on my birth certificate but a lot people in 1984 looked up and said we the second ronald reagan makes more sense to me than

walter mondale people i don't think i'm a democrat i think i'm republican and i came into the party with ireland and other conservatives, a lot of northeastern catholic voters and midwestern ethnic catholic voters can to the republican party and there was this talk about the -- a lot was driven about not only economics of the cultural aspects. abortion was an issue and i remember the story but the party being taken over by all these people and the country club republicansersus the social conservatives and the was the big story and we won and we won big in '84 and thin and 92 after ross perot had run and some would argue may have resulted in former president bush 41 clong and president clinton winning but clearly had a big impact. a lot of the voters can into the republican party and e process -- -- of the short of a is the more people coming to a party th better and i'm glad they are coming into the party. they are concerned about what

people have been voting republican and going to republican meetings for years are concerned about this debt is out of control, taxes are too high, there's too much regulation, intervention in the economy, come in. >> attorneys to be ronald reagan had this line the evin command at is thou shalt not steal of another republican yet you have jim demint from south carolina in the sene who is running engaging in primaries against the sitting senators, sitting fellow republican senators and wants to purge the party like olympia snowe and maybe even bob corker for all i know who are too moderate. so that and i know that there are a lot of people in the leadership who do not see jim demint too well so are you going to have a war within the republican conference? >> if senator demint -- he has said he would rather have a republican conference of 30 republicans who share his view the and 51 with 2 who don't.

>> that is not enlarging the party. >> i understand. [laughter] >> keep going. you're doing great. >> that is his int of view. i like jim demt and i know and respect him. i don't share the point of view. sometimes what it takes to get elected to the senate as a republican in texas is different than what it takes to get elected a statewide in maine or oregon, and you know, we have to be competitive around the country. at the same time i don't think the party should abandon its principles of being for overtaxes and stronger national security and traditional values and i think we can do both somewhere in between there is a happy medium. >> so if the republicans to take over the house of representatives particularly if it's big, should nancy pelosi continue to be speaker of the -- the democratic leader or should somebody else take over who is

more popular in the country? >> i was at the number of the democratic caucus up there but if the house or to go republican i think they're going to have as you mentioned a very tough civil war inside the party. they will get pushed to an extreme. it's a way to create havoc. as the sea today it's not just the republican party. it's the democrats are still more popular. it's just the tea party and they are great because it's brought a lot of enthusiasm. i love to see people out there engaged in active discourse but it's taken some modete republicans and the primary shoved them to the right and it's taken those on the right and clearly shoved them into outer space out your and some of these candidates have that's great out of the mainstream of american and that is and what voters want. the independents don't like it. >> do we have a microphone somewhere please come anybody raise your hand. >> i see somebody right back

there. stevan and tell us who you are. >> and with the national prejudices the nation. my question is regarding the agenda going forward particularly of the republican side if they do take control of the house. we saw when they won in '94 they started enacting items with contractor america but then they ran out of steam and got the point tom delay said they are going to your market from the majority and lost their way to read to you seany kind of long-term strategy we see democrats over theears and decades say national health care is the goal and so took them 60s on the years to get there but they got their. do you see republicans coming up with a formula saying we are going to force rollback in the obama administration they didn't and these things they did during the carter had fenestration and so on and so forth until they get back to here the republicans want to be. >> i do, and i don't argue with

your assessment. the nature of poitics we had the house for 12 years, and you know, by the time you get into the age, might come out and hear all of the low hanging fruit is gone and it just becomes you do run out of gas is how you put it, run out of steam, that's the natural cycle of politics and then th pendulum starts to swing and the white house for eight years the same period. a lot of good things done. the balanced budget cited under president clinton didn't happen until the republicans got control of congress reading fact when democrats got control before the projections by the omb and cbo were as far as the eye could see. so i think the republicans will come in and they will reclai the mantle of the fiscal discipline which we lost, and in 06 and 08 more voters in both of those election cycles and the democratic candidate for congress would be more likely to

cut their taxes and cut spending. that's not the case today. that's because of what president obama and nancy pelosi and harry reid have done not only because what we've done that we have to demonstrate that when we get control. the good news is if you look at new jersey or virginia where republican governors have governed as they said they would and have taken on public workers union's and public employee unions in new jersey and a balanced budget in virginia, doing the things they said they what i think republicans in congress and in the house in particular will do that. as for the longer term, i do think there is a true conflict of provisions to use the term at is shaping up here in a more clear way than we have seen in really some time. and our standard there on the republican side in 2012 will carry the message about the virtues of the space capitalism and why it is the greest anti-poverty program, why that is the greatest advance, we to advance the human condition, and

we will have the debate but until we of the standard bearer, the republicans in congress will be focused on rsponding to what the obama administration and democratic congress has done in a trying to get some of that rule back. >> one thing the leedy and i would disagree on that is important, president clinton started with the had in 1993 with the deficit reduction act of 1993 was not one single republican voting for if you remember to the point of remember they went down and raved goodbye and she ended up losing the next election but if you talk to some of the former republican secretaries of the treasury, you talk to the economists, 90% started in 1993 with the deficit reduion act which most republicans said the economy would go off a cliff, it did just the opposite so when we talk about president clinton and his surplus this started in3 republicans came in 93, beginning in '95 than we had

some budget fights they wanted to shut down the part of education, they wanted to eliminate the department of energy which in the green infrared we are in today created was the dumbest thing we ever could have done and we shut the government down twice and was the right thing to do. >> do you see there is a chance that the government shutdowns in the next two years given the fact the republicans want to cut spending and especially in health care implementation and the president doesn't want to do that? >> i was in the white house for president bush win the democratic congress was passing a budget that was -- that he wouldn't sign and he wanted things done that they didn't want to enact, and the government shutdown was diverted as was the case after the first quarter out with president clinton, kind of an agreement out there that it is in no one's interest to shut down the federal government by at least agreeing to continue to resotions and we will work out

on thesite if we are icreasing here some provisions composite provisions that can be carried on a continual resolution of both sides are amenableto it and which oversight says no we are going to send you this even though you are going to view it or the president vetoed something that hadn't been agreed to that is where the blame game begins but i think it's been kind and understanding this been in place since the gingrich clinton showdown and 95 that a continued resolution current levels until you can work out differences will be in place. >> let's hope that president obama what's john meter come down the front steps of the air port. >> this will be the largest freshman class we' probably seen in 40 years. we've got 43 open seats, new members coming in, going to be

some significant gains by the republicans, so no matter what this will be one of the largest class is we've seen in a long time. no matter what happens i don't think it is going to happen. but the fear is going to be huge changes in the republican party. there's those from the tiahrt background who are going to win who are going to demand no earmarks. they are going to demand we no longer have these and many mayors in the caucus who will stand for that is why don't think it will be a cohesive group in order to acomplish that it will still control the united states economy. >> questions? >> in the back. yes. thomas niles with john deere. thanks for joining us, the distinguished members of the panel as well as the moderator. this would be a question for all three of you to get a week from today, wednesday, december 3rd, as we are getting a bit of reading the newspapers checking in with he media what is the biggest rprise for the oh wow

from the day before? >> the biggest surprise, well, i can't think it's going to be the size of the republican sweep. i think it's going to be written by 40 seats. i don't think the republicans are going to take control of the senate, but i think they are going to gain a lot of seats in the house. 50 something. so i think that's going to be is price. i think what really concerns me is the gridlock that's going to happen the next two years especially when the debt commission reports. we have to get this debt under contl but that is another question. anyw, john, i mean and. >> i agree there will be a big magnitude from the republican win. one of the things that may not be surprised the is likely to be under reported is the diversity it's going to come into the

republican party in this e election in terms of elected leaders, a hispanic center coming from florida i believe, mark a robie to -- arubio, elected latino member of congress from washington state likely to be three african-americans elected to the u.s. house. we will have women governors and senators on the republican side and that will reflect the magnitude of the numbers itself, but it also is not likely to be widely reported by the media as i think that is a significant and positive development for the republican party going forward especially -- >> but do you see a big upset in the making? somebody that's going to win that's not expected to win or somebody that's going to lose that is expected to win? >> obviously senate majority

leader is a very tight race. harry reid i think the big stories go obviously totally different as 43 seats if they even get close to that people ll be shocked republicans didn't have a big win. there's to much of a ridge on the republican side the last month. they realized last week they have to bring that in a little bit. so i think e big surprise is the didn't win as many seats as they thought was possible. >> all right. another question. right here. we have five minutes left and i have to close with predictio. go ahead. [laughter] >> i have a question about gubernatorial and state legislature raises and when you see the impact on the redistricting. >> obviously it's the governor's races are so important because we are now into the years of the redistricting. any time you and in as you know we have big race is going on

credit florida i think is of a couple of points, alex is the first female governor of florida that would be a big win, we as a competitive race in texas i think we hold on to california so a lot of those states with new members of congress are going to be cming from sitting here today but in an argument is going to be good for us there are a lot of -- there is no question about itit is a big deal as i say for the governors' races. i would say as a point of personal privilege and i think ed and i agree if you look at the nasty politics and so forth it's really gotten horrible out there. things are not getting done for the country fe to be giving them political have to move more of these non-partisan trawling of lines but i thi the competition is good. i think the members of congress when 95% of the time they are not competitive anymore and that some of the problems we have in the system of government.

>> in terms of the reasons in texas, texas is the biggest gain in the apportionment, i think we're going to expand in the texas hou as well and just in terms of the impact texas is a good example of the input controlled legislature and redistricting because when democrats controlled the texas legislature and there were 32 congressmen and congressional delegaon to the breakdown was 17 democrats and 15 republicans. when republicans took control the redrew the lines of their 21 republicans and 11 democrats comes what went from negative two to plus tenet just to give you a sense of the impact of redistricting on the congressional composition. when you look today the gains that are going to be made by the republicans that are likely to result in a control of the house a lot of them are long upper

midwest and great lakes starting in new york maybe six or more house seats pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, wisconsin, indiana, a lot of seats and all those states as well as florida i think, and that is a tossup governor's race right now and will have a big impact. there is a valid initiatives for the non-partisan redistricting in florida but just take those great lakes i think we are going to win the new york state senate so instead of having those freshmen who are elected in 2012 carville of their seats by the democratic legislature, democratic governor will be able to protect those republican gains, ohio i think we are gong to have a republican governor, state house, state senate, the scene in indiana and pennsylvania, the scene and was concentrating we are goi to win the michigan state house, so those gains that we make it

equal translate between 15 to 25 u.s. house seats either being protected or carved over the next cycles. ohio for example loses two seats, so having control of the ohio statehouse many to win the seats to gain control of the four seats to gain control of the ohio state house. there will be important because you want to have from our perspective if you're going to draw in order to lose two seats to all somebody all of their seats i would rather see dennis kucich and john boehner out of the seat. sohose are very important elections and that is one of the kind of unwritten or underreported stories of the impact and have a big year like we are having in the year that ends in zero because it can result in the cycles -- >> we are out of time. >> the bad news for all of you in this room and i apologize, a week from today the 2012 presidential campaign begins. [laughter]

>> i was went after st to briefly indicate 2009. a couple of questions sarah palin running? >> she's opened the door more than i have seen her recently and in the republican primary three estimate does mitch daniels done? >> he has at best forward leaning. he's been a but considering it but i don't know. >> who do you think the republican nominee will be or do you have a hunch? >> i have no hunch and i think it is going to be a very big field and a lot of frustration and i think there will be good for us and it will be about seven or eight legitimate contenders. [laughter] >> does barack obama get challenged perhaps over afghanistan or something like that? >> no chance. >> no chance tt hillary clinton will decide to run against them?

okay, listen, thank you all very much and i just want you to observe civility in action. if you can do anything r the members of congress and governors and so on to stop them from a building at one another and have you them talk like >> coming up later, we will have more political programming. the focus will be money in politics hosted by the committee for economic development. we will have that story feel alive and 12:20 eastern here on c-span. each night, we're showing

debates from key races. here's our lineup for tonight, beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern. vitter will be running. then a debate for the next governor of oklahoma. then we have two more governor'' races, in new hampshire and minnesota. five of the 34 democrats who voted against the health care bill appear to be safe. they are daniel the penske -- lapinski of illinois and collin peterson of minnesota. the remaining races -- anti incumbency tide appears ready to sweep out those 29 lawmakers.

>> follow the key races and candidates on c-span, with debates every night and go online to see archived debates. visit our politics page for the upcoming event coverage and other resources. see the jon stewart and steven colbert rally on c-span. we will show lots of interviews and debates. fallout c-span's -- follow c- right election coverage through election day. >> governor charlie crist and in theican marc o rubio florida senate race.

the debate from tuesday is moderated by david gregory. >> we are live tonight for the final face-off one week from election night. it all comes down to this. this continues to garner national attention. this is the last time the three top candidates will publicly debate each other. joining us tonight, the republican candidate, rubio. a quick overview of the rules tonight. you'll have a one-minute opening statement. then we have a conversation

around this table. you have two minutes to respond. i think you should all be given credit for how many debates you have done. i want to approach this to try to follow up on some of the important questions and pin you down with some answers. mr. rubio, you have been chosen to go first. >> thank you for coming down to florida to host this debate. we are on the verge of one of the most important elections in history. at a time when america is confronting challenges -- washington has had us on the wrong road. both parties are to blame for that. as a result, washington is a mess.

it is important that we send to washington that will stand up to this an offer a clear alternative. that is why i'm running for the u.s. senate. we have outlined ideas on the website. we have focused on the issues and given people clear ideas about where we would like to take our country and our state. this is such an important debate. i want to thank all of you for tuning in. >> thank you. >> david, i want to thank you for coming and to be a part of this debate. it is important for people to see with this is all about. this election will determine who the next senator will be to represent our beautiful florida. it is important that you understand what your choices

are. one choice will give us a chance for a better and brighter future. there is another choice. my friend talks about raising the retirement age for our senior citizens. i do not think that is the right path. he talks about overturning roe versus wade and a woman's right to choose. i do not think i should impose my will on the women of florida. this race gives you an -- a chance to declare your independence. i think the parties are broken. we have seen political parties in washington, d.c., the more about them then they are about you, the people of florida and the people of america. i believe what abraham lincoln said it was right. he never set of the party. that is what this race is about.

i invite you to go to my website. i would ask for your vote. >> thank you. >> david, thank you for being here. i am excited about being here tonight because this is the final vote. i want to thank those who have already voted, some by absentee. make an educated decision about who will stand for you. special interest have lobbyists. someone to stand up for you, you will find that candidate in may. i am qualified and i went through at about 67 counties in this state. i'm endorsed by veterans throughout the state of florida. i am the only person here who fought against george bush when

you wanted to privatize social security. i'm against oil drilling before and after the spill. go to mike website and look at other issues. make an educated decision about who will be best for you. other forward to receiving your vote. i will continue to work hard until next tuesday when the polls close and the votes are counted. >> i will hit all of these issues, rest assured. i want to start with what was responsible for the financial collapse, the foreclosure collapse. i see some pretty tough numbers in the papers. prices continue to dip. housing market continues to stumble. home sales keep falling. the headlines go on and on. existing home sales dropping

from last year. americans lost $6 trillion when equity prices in their homes or evaporated in this financial collapse. the obama administration has not done very much to mitigate that problem. the foreclosure problem continues. what would you do to sell the foreclosure problem? >> let's analyze this. let's talk about started this problem. one was bad housing policy. it was perpetuated by republicans. banks made bad loans that would not be paid back. monetary policy was eased. it was easier to get bad loans. we separate the bubble -- we suffered the bubble perhaps more

than any other state. the obama administration has tried a number of different plans. there is no easy answer. the stuff being tried is not working. over 1.3 million temporary workouts have now defaulted -- >> mortgage modification. >> there has been 500,000 permanent and 11% have already defaulted. these plans have not worked. if you. five months, they edit five months to the back of the loan -- if you owed five months, they added five months to the back of the loan. and many cases, working out on lowering the principle for some people would be better for the

bank's. >> that is an interesting issue. the big issue is that people will not go into the market. why would you want to buy? what would you say about a government program that would insure a new homeowners downpayment on a new home so i have some incentive to get back into the market. >> i would like to study and understand these well. >> you talked about principal. >> these are existing home owners. what you will do is add five years. you would add 5 payments to the back of the loan. the lowering of the principal idea will be cheaper for the bank then going for the foreclosure process. >> floridians may know what freddie mae and freddie mac do. the guarantee 90% of the mortgages in this country.

the government assumed the risk for all of those mortgages. which be done with fannie mae and freddie mac? should the plug the pulled on them? " there should be greater -- there should be greater regulation. we are so dependent on the housing market for our economy and tourism. prices of their homes got inflated all over the state. the bubble burst and that caused the problems that floridians are facing. it is not something that is rare in the sunshine state. i think we need to reduce the tax burden on the people in florida. we have done that. i have led the charge on reducing property taxes. we have begun to start to do that. we have doubled the homestead

reduction and to ease the property tax burden in florida. we have to continue on that path. other ideas that have started to work in terms of getting the housing market moving again is the $8,000 first home buyer tax credit that this administration put forward. understand the administration can do some positive things. >> what about fannie mae and freddie mac. this is a huge issue. should the united states government be honest and say we will take all of that risk onto our balance sheet and incur the risks? >> we have fdic which gives a guaranteed so if there is a problem with a mortgage, there is government backed up fo eightr it. we had a run on the banks. there was not the kind of

guarantee and security. we suffer from security and confidence. >> what about the role of government? do you think the government hould insure new home balowne'' downpayments? >> he talked about a credit and that was an attempt to accomplish that kind of bold, not take responsibility -- >> and what happened when it was pulled? it went down. >> it is important to show leadership here. floridians are suffering because homes are suffering and property values are going down. cities and counties are hurting more than ever. we have verbal fights at local county commissions and city commissions trip is important for the next united states senator to embrace the real florida. there will have to be some serious federal employee --

involvement. >> would you support insuring somebody's down payment if they want to buy a home? " i would not go as far as insuring a downpayment. i think we still need more work on making sure we can deal with the homeowners that are failing. we need to take those 10,000 foreclosure documents. the industry asked to look at the industry standard so that we can have some kind of real evaluation there. having people foreclosed on in florida don't deserve being foreclosed. >> i do want to talk about politics. this is a three-way race. governor, you are running as an independent. you said you left the gop because the party had gone so far to the right. you mentioned roe vs. wade,

overturning roe versus wade and stem cell research. here is a copy of the republican platform in 2008. both of those views are well spelled out in this party platform. were you underwear that that was an intrinsic part of the platform? >> i have not changed. -- review unaware -- were you unaware? >> we are talking about the issue of being pro-life. i do not feel it is appropriate to impose my it will on others. >> you campaigned in 2006 and talked about abortion. are you part of the problems? >> not at all. i have an opponent in the

republican party who wants to overturn roe versus wade, take away that decision from women in my state. i don't feel we need big government. and also to stop stem cell research. it is important that we have compassionate leaders. if you do more research, you may find the cure for diabetes or cancer or alzheimer's the quack do you think floridians should say that something changed? the opposition and using federal dollars or overturning roe versus wade is somehow an extreme view of the republican party? >> the level of discourse has changed dramatically. the republican party has gone hard right. just look at the other nominees around the country. christine o'donnell, rand paul, angalel in nevada.

those people have gone so far to the right. my republican opponent said that some people do not like this country enough and that if they do not like it, they should leave the country. >> i want to give you a chance to respond. i brought out the republican platform for 2008. is there any part of the platform that bothers you? >> my public policy is not based on the republican platform. it is based on the things i stand for. i have gone out of my way to outline specific ideas. we have over 80 ideas of the things i want to do if i'm elected. those are the things i believe it and those are the things i am running on. i think the republican party is largely to blame for things going on in washington.

they began to forget about that. republicans were basically becoming indistinguishable from those they chose to represent. republicans forget about the ideals or principles that they ran on and think the purpose of the public service is to be reelected. your pre-election should be a byproduct of your public service. >> what about the claim that the party left him? >> he has run consistently as a republican. it has been well covered. everybody sees it for what it is. what others it deserved is that we do not spend a tremendous amount of time to try to convince people that he found a new path. he switched because he could not win the primary. >> you said you have been a public service who has been about the middle road.

you voted with the democrats 98% of the time since 2007. as you look back, where do you think the democrats who were swept into power, where do think they have lost their way? >> i want to say that i was found as a moderate voter in congress. i am a democrat, for sure. you can count on that. if it is making sure we bring down health-care companies that have run this whole issue on insurance, then you can count me in that number. if it comes down to when a woman can be paid as much as a man, i am for that, too. that is the 98% voting with

democrats and it presents an opportunity for floridians to see who is representing them. >> how do you think democrats lost their way to the point where the country is this anger with democratic rule? >> when you're losing 700,000 jobs a month -- it takes a lot to get out of that. that is a mighty deep hole. i believe people as they approached the polling place will remember that. the kind of ideology that my opponents are talking about is the kind of ideology that got us into this place in the first place. the speaker is talking about, i am upset with democrats and republicans. this man is the speaker of the house in florida.

the governor of the state embraced the same ideas that he embraced when he was elected as a republican. as a democrat -- i will provide the kind of leadership. this race comes down to leadership. we stood up against george w. bush when it wanted to privatize social security. we stood up against tallahassee when we needed to make class sizes smaller. >> would take 30 seconds, it would be interesting to hear on the issue of how we got to this place. there is disaffection with democratic rule. some democrats have been hanging back. >> washington d.c. has been overrun by people who do not want to face the issues of our

time. there are serious problems and they don't go away on their own. other generations have faced and solved their problems. we beat up on the first generation of leadership and we're saying let's leave the problems to our children. >> everybody at this table understands that washington is broken. it is broken. they cannot accomplish anything. if we allow the political parties to become too powerful, we may cripple the country we have just created, said george washington. they cannot get anything done. that is why i am running as an independent. >> we will take a break here and talk more about the issues.

we'll come back, the final debate right here in orlando after this break. >> we are back. i'm david gregory and i am here with the senate democrats for the open sea in florida. i want to ask you about the evolution of some of your views. this is an attack against to. and ask you about gay adoption. you said in 2006, "i don't think gay adoption is a corporate." then you said, later, it was a great day for children. >> i call at the convergence of life experience and wisdom. when you learn through the time of life more tolerance and

become less judgmental, i think that is a good place to be, and that is how i am. >> four years did that to you? >> i think it is different for everybody. >> limit ask about "don't ask, don't tell -- let me ask you about "don't ask, don't tell." >> i enforced the laws on the books as attorney general. i was duty bound. >> you talked a legal position -- you took a position. it is not just evolution. "don't ask, don't tell." you said in may that the policy has worked. this is a pattern. this is political expediency. this is not a heartfelt change

of use. >> is a heartfelt change of views. my opponents are attacking it. i said i would have two cannons aimed at me, and i'm up to the task. but sometimes people change their minds about different things on all kinds of issues. it's called being honest. they are rigid. they have to stay where they are. i'm liberated and free. i am a true for meridian -- i am a true floridians. >> voters see this and they understand it and they make decisions based on that. critical issues are facing our country. people want honest answers to the serious problems our country faces. >> you wanted to make a comment.

>> it is important that people understand. we have had this debate before. i do believe that marco rubio and woodley stands for in this statewide race for governor -- rick scott is a dangerous combination for florida. but the governor is talking about why a number of democrats in the state say that they have to change. i believe in the positions that i have been taken. i believe a woman has the right to choose. i believe in the fact that so many kids aren't foster care right now and that everyone who is a guy would to take advantage of being able to raise that child. that is been my position. gay adoption did not change from the. i have always been for it. but the governor is a public policy person. i am bothered by some of his

business record when i hear it flip-flops in the hallway, i think is the governor walking down the hall. it is -- it has gone to a level where it blemished what we're trying to do here. i strongly disagree with him on a number of issues. i think florida it knows it too. it is kind of like a gray area that nobody knows. >> being flexible is not a sin. understanding the facts and circumstances change is being a thinking person with an open mind. i think is better to be a senator with an open mind. this is how i am. i think it's how most of florida is. they make a decision. i am an old quarterback. sometimes you call a play in the huddle and you have to call an

audible because the defense is different. >> lindi move on to social security. you have -- let me move on to social security. how is it a response a position to look floridians in the eye to say we can just tinker with social security? doesn't need to be dealt with in a responsible way? either you're going to raise taxes or cut benefits. >> i think we have to be responsible right now. we are in a deep recession. florida is one of four states status still hovering above the national average and is important that we look at this and have a truth if i tuition. i have talked about expanding middle class jobs in the state. >> but the question is about

social security. >> you do not file a bill and say the social security problem is over. usually you set the table, you talk about the issue, you don't raise taxes. you don't flipped the retirement age be quick what would you do? -- >> what would you do? raising the retirement age is not on the table. >> not for me. i do not think you move the goalposts. >> why would take moving the retirement age off the table? why would you do that? how is it a response a position 2037? we're ok until >> because i think we are.

there was a great piece written about this not long ago. this is the one program in washington d.c. that is actually working. and politicians want to attack it. it is solvent. this is a promise to the people of our state and our country. social security is something that keeps them safe and secure. my view is that we need to protect it as it is. if somebody wants to represent the senior is, they should understand where we are. my republican opponent says he wants to put raising the retirement age on the table. he wants to put privatisation on the table. >> he can speak for himself. he said privatisation was tried and it didn't work. he is for raising the retirement age. >> hold on one second.

let's talk about what you are putting on the table. you are 39. when would you raise the retirement age? >> let's set the record straight. the merits of social security do not need to be explained to me. my mother turns 80 in november. social security is her primary source of income. i have said over and over that we should make no changes to the program for current beneficiaries and for anyone who is 55 years of age or over. the was an editorial attacking you for saying these things when they are not true. this is an issue for younger workers. we have a simple choice. we cannot bury our head in the sand and pretend there is no problem.

we can say we have until 2037 or 2040. we can bury our head in assent or we can begin to address the issue. there are 30 some ideas. the governor's amnesty plan was not one of them. >> the retirement age bequests for people under 55 years of age. >> what is your idea? >> i think the way you look at it has to make sense. you cannot just throw out a number. there is a starting point and you could add 1 months two every years. that means i would get to retire at 68 instead of 67. >> is it reasonable to think that retirement -- that social security levels at this level will be there for somebody who was 45 years old today? >> i believe so, yes.

i am an optimist. you are hearing from my worthy opponent sort of a pessimistic view of america going forward. he has talked about during the course of this campaign. i believe -- i do not share that view. >> social security is solvent until 2037. it is important that we deal with that. what is happening with this program -- people 55 depend on this, too. my sister just turned 56. >> she should have no problem. >> when you look at the issue, what muddies the water, and i'm not talking about doing nothing. i'm talking about expanding the middle class work force and use

it as a driving force to create blue-collar and white-collar jobs in this country. we have given up on that. the thing about it is that and jerry of this year in tallahassee, marco rubio call for privatization of medicare, privatization of medicaid. he is not talking about that out because he sees that will be something that will rock the boat. i think is important for those of us who defended social security to point to where we had to fight the bush administration. i am dealing one sitting at this table that can say that. folks will make hasty decisions that will affect floridians. i will do everything to make sure -- >> do you think private accounts make any sense the with the bush

administration proposes? >> i will tell you what the answer is no. i have studied that issue. it makes the problem worse, not better. the government talks about being optimistic. here are the facts. we're paying more than we are taking in in social security. congress has raided the funds and using it in general revenue. every year that goes by, we have more and more people retiring and less and less people paying into a iit. every year ago is by common solvent it gets harder, not easier. we need a real solution. >> thank you. we have an awful lot of people who are here illegally in our

country. million to 14billion million. they should be actively involved in the american economy. this was talked about but secretary reich. it is a serious plan and is the right thing to do. what is not right is privatizing it. it is not fair to the people home watching tonight. >> he has said the plan makes the problem worse, not better. >> i said is an idea i wanted to give him credit for. >> button this up.

>> i have been a true defender of social security. they are flat out lying at this table. the only new table to solve social security is and i did you do not like. >> that is not the only idea. that is an idea speaker rubio likes. we cannot move the goalposts for those who are going to retire soon. i want us to be out of this deep recess of -- recession we're in. >> i am going to cut it off there. are debuting up in boston. does anyone think they heat

with lebron james has a chance to go all the way? we will be back after this short break. >> we are back and we want to move into something of a lightning rampart i want to get to some additional issues and keep this conversation going. then start on the issue of afghanistan do you think it is an existential threat to america? quest i think so if we allow the taliban to have a safe haven that can threaten the entire world. the world has to be a part of the solution. the taliban and afghanistan officials are talking to one another. pakistan must be part of that. nato must continue to play a

strong hold their quest what if next july journal petraeus -- general petraeus says we just cannot do with there? >> i think we should challenge the world community. i understand that we have to put the plier on. >> iraq. >> there are too many military families that have paid the ultimate price. we should stand up for those families. >> if we win in afghanistan, what to win? -- what do we win? >> they are a nuclear -- pakistan is a nuclear power.

they could gain possession of those nuclear weapons. the taliban can be a staging -- that can be a staging place for that to a corporate i think the president is correct with the troop surge. i think general petraeus is the right man for the job. an artificial timeline for withdraw is the wrong approach. i think the surge is the right approach to correct what the u.n. -- what tdo you win? >> a stabilization. >> if general petraeus once more troops, which is support that? >> absolutely. >> we do not say that lightly.

the goal has to be in mind. nobody would ever advocate and endless war. this is not about a time frame. with respect to our service men and women who were serving overseas, we have great gratitude and we are blessed to have families and young people who are stepping up and serving. >> i want to move on to iran. under what circumstances should the united states considered military actions against iran? >> what concerns me about iran is mahmoud ahmadinejad. they have been able to start putting in their nuclear capability as it relates to electricity. what we need to be cognizant of

is will we understand here in florida. i signed the first bill to divest any of our pension funds in iran and sudan. that is the kind of economic pressure you want to continue on iran. >> do you think tax cuts should be paid for? >> they do not pay for -- they are not paid for by themselves. there are a number of people that believe that, as well. we should have fiscal discipline. i believe in a balanced budget amendment. limit what through that process. you don't just sit on a talk show -- let me walk through that process. states have to examine that and figure out which programs justify them.

we have talked about things like a 10% cut and saying that for two every civilians that leaves the work force, let's only hire one person. all the discretionary spending is not enough. social security and the entitlement programs are so critical for our future. >> if you believe in cutting the deficit, what is a painful choice you would make? >> not extending the bush tax cuts. i know i said $6,000 per family. it is actually $600 per year per middle class family to pay for the $70 million that my opponents would like to borrow. those are the kinds of painful cuts we need to make. i have voted for pay as you go

to make sure we get to fiscal discipline. china, japan, india -- we will be beholden to them as long as we continue to run this kind of cake and ice cream government. we have two wars going on. >> we're nowhere near to balancing the budget. >> but we have to start somewhere and we should make sure we're a fiscally disciplined. afghanistan war costs a lot of money. i voted to make sure our men and women are secure in harm's way. we have to be responsible when it comes to spending. if we invest half the money we invest in war, we would have a stronger economy. >> the first thing we need to do is get the economy moving. we can talk about what we will

reduce. we are bound to do so. we have slashed our budget by $7.4 billion dust bowl -- cutbacks -- what would you cut? >> it is important to give people the cuts they deserve, and small business as well, so they can start hiring people. those are the kinds of things we should do to get the economy going. >> i want to work harder building consensus. we do think we can build consensus if you are senator? >> all americans will have to build consensus behind this deficit problem. this thing has to be dealt with. it will triple by the end of the decade career we're going to be

forced to reach consensus. >> where would you do it? >> some of these difficult decisions are upon us. the day of reckoning is here. we have to begin embracing fiscal discipline. there are other areas where i've been pleased with some of the things the president has done. the race to the top programs. >> which to keep the education money where it is -- wouldn't you keep the education money where is -- would you keep the education money we're it is? >> i hope they are taking it in a direction that send devises the state. >> who would you caucused with as senator? would you do with democrats or republicans?

>> it depends on the answers i get to questions if i have the honor of going to washington, d.c. >> does that mean your vote is for sale? >> i will go to the democrats and the republicans. i will ask the difficult questions. what are you going to do to help us get a national fund to protect us going forward. those are difficult questions. i would make a decision that is in the best interest of my fellow floridians, or not. >> we will leave it there. i'll turn it over to you. you're closing statements. all of you will have a couple of moments to address the audience. >> david, thinking to. i want to take -- david, thank you. i want to thank everybody for

participating in these debates. one of us is going to be the next u.s. senator. i hope it will be made. the next u.s. senator will go to washington at one of the most important moments in our history. we are facing issues that need to be solved. the next united states senator from florida it should stand up to this agenda and offer a clear and genuine alternative. throughout this campaign, that is what i have done. if you go to our website, you will see our specific ideas. so tonight i am asking you for your vote, for the opportunity to go to washington, d.c., to offer an alternative to leave something positive for our children. thank you. god bless you all.

>> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues and we will see what happens on tuesday. i think it is important that every foreign pay attention to what was said and what was not said. i am the only candidate that is willing to move forward with green initiatives that will create jobs now. not people that ship jobs overseas. make sure we create a high-speed rail system here in florida that will create jobs and real opportunities for people to be able to reach those jobs. veterans know i understand we should make sure we salute those that allow us to salute the flag. our educators in florida and i'm glad to be endorsed by public school teachers. i will continue to stand up on

behalf of quality education in this state. boat early and make sure if you don't vote early -- vote early and make sure if you do not vote early, vote on election day. >> thank you for these debates. they have been interesting and entertaining. this is an important election. florida and america are at a crossroads. one view you hear from mr. rubio is about fear and despair. i did not see that view as the future of our country. i am an optimist. i believe we have a much brighter future for all of our fellow floridians. you have a choice in this race. i am running as an independent. i know it is hard for many of you who have either voted for a democrat or a republican. but in this election, you have a

fundamental choice that you can make. your vote is precious. is to be cherished. it is a time-honored tradition in our country. it is only your vote winds you go into that voting booth. i appeal to you for your vote. if i get your vote, we will have a bright future together. >> stay with nbc news and local nbc stations. good night. -- stay with nbc news and your local nbc station. >> in just five days until the midterm election. we're showing debates each night from key races around the country. here's our lineup tonight. tonight, louisiana. david vitter is running.

at 8:00 p.m., the debate between the next governor of oklahoma. then the focus on the senate race in illinois, fall by new hampshire and minnesota. $4 billion will be spent on the midterm elections this year. that figure endorsed the 2.8 $5 billion spent during 2006. in 1998, the now was $1.61 billion. coming up, more political programming. the focus will be on money and politics, hosted by the committee for economic development. we will have that for you live store 12 it at:20 eastern -- will have that lie 12 for you -- we will have that life

for you at 12:20 eastern here on c-span. leaning heavily republican this year. democrats try to spur women and left leaning people to vote using social issues. it is unclear whether the push toward social issues can make up the advantage republicans have on economic topics. across the board democrats are losing support from many groups that strongly backed the party in 2008 and in 2006, but the campaign down bomb -- are bombarding the no voters about social issues. targeted phone calls and direct mail.

this that is a little bit from the "wall street journal" article this morning. and "the washington times" as

noted in the previous article, in the colorado race, economy versus abortion is the headline. linda, republican line. what is getting you out to the polls, linda? >> good morning. actually, and i hope you'll let me say what i want to say. it is not a specific issue. it is being a citizen of our country. this is how i raise my son when he was growing up. he is growing now. i told him, you know, unless you are under anesthesia or six or incapacitated, and you vote. it is what we do. it is like getting up and brushing our teeth and eating three meals a day. it is not optional. and being a citizen of the united states. therefore there is no specific issue getting me to the polls. certainly there are issues that i am very interested in, but i

think that is where a lot of our problems come, in having the low voter turnout. host: had ever missed an election? the guest: -- at caller: i have not. host: local legend, too? caller: and i think those are more important, really. host: what is the issue for you getting to -- you to the polls? caller: i am always thinking about the economy, making sure we have more jobs, which i don't think either party has done so far. i think our political system really is not helping because they are more concerned about what the receive that what is going right for the country. since that is not really an issue, i think i am voting against the tea party. they really scare me. you have guys like ken buck in, rather who openly said he does not like the separation of church and state and sharron angle who said racist things. she even said that she has been

mistaken as the first asian legislator. you have people think that kind of thing, it is scary. and who have that world view. host: so the economy is number one in your book but you are voting on social issues, is that a correct statement? caller: yes, i think i am doing that simply because no one is talking about the economy the way it really needs to be talked about. and i do believe that just because the tea party are saying these really strange things -- i mean, sitting at home is never an option in any election. host: another democrat from chicago. caller: yes, i am voting because what i see and hear from bob wright. they are just extreme. host: what is the issue? caller: my main issue is the outsourcing of white-collar jobs

by our children who are four- year degree jobs. i was googling on the internet, and i was googling job is outsourced to india. i was just floored. host: another republican -- chris, gaithersburg, maryland, here in the suburbs. caller: what is getting me out to vote is the steps the left is trying to take this country toward socialism. i can't believe how the country has changed. host: give a specific issue to relate to that. caller: basically destroying the private industry -- everybody -- there are 41 million people getting food stamps. welfare, this is worse than when bill clinton first got in. it is unbelievable. it has taken people to where they are sitting on their hands. everybody who is an investor that i know is sitting on their

money, putting it in treasury bills. not investing in the economy at all. host: from "the hill" the midterm poll, likely voters throw a wrench in gop budget plans. but then did a conundrum for gop leaders next year. -- presenting a conundrum. they don't want budget cut at the expense of big social programs or defense. 71 percent of likely republican voters in 10 house that of ron districts the said congress should cut spending even if it means fewer earmarks, and likely independent voters think the same but the same poll found republicans and independentss think the jury prospect of cutting programs that constitute a larger portion of the federal budget, a majority of

republicans, 57%, as well as 65% of independents said that are not willing to accept cuts to social security and medicaid to trim the deficit. ray, independent line from charlotte, north carolina. what is the issue for you? caller: i just think, like, one of the ladies said it earlier, some of be more republican, the issues are just a little bit more radical. the issues for me is health care. it is obvious that, look, obama has tried to do things like give incentives to the private sector, to the businesses, so they can hire more people. basically give tax breaks and giving money to hire people -- they have not been hiring

people. this is a tactic -- this is a tactic to stop the democrats -- i mean, if you leave it up to the private sector to hire jobs, they are not going to do it. they will discriminate and higher when they want and how they want. that is what they are doing. host: judy, scottsdale, arizona. republican. caller: i live in arizona and i am very disappointed in president obama. i think he has divided people by class, race, he has given the go-ahead for l.a. to sue arizona. our borders are not secured, to not believe all of the bs from janet napolitano. there is so much crime in the phoenix area on the borders. host: immigration issues? democrat absolutely. and the way obama divide the

country by class, race, gives l.a. the ok to boycott phoenix. host: for midterm voters, this is an article from "the new york times." more than 1300 american service members have lost their lives there. the u.s. has spent over $300 billion on average so far. yet polling suggests that the war in afghanistan is barely a blip on the voters raters as the midterm elections approach. given the condition of the economy and high unemployment rate, the fact that most americans largely cite these problems as the nation's top issues is not surprising. what is surprising is that hardly any americans cite the war in afghanistan at all. in a recent new york times/cbs news poll conducted last september, 60% of americans said that the economy or jobs were the most important problems facing the country. it a mere 3 percent mentioned

afghanistan or the war. west leg, ohio. a democrat, you are on the air. caller: i agree with the woman who says she always goes out to vote. the first thing is the national level, and i think it is very important that we not go back to the republicans because they got us into this mess, the financial situation. and i am afraid that they will take regulations off that have just been put on -- the supervision of banks and wall street. on a local level, we need to reelect gov. strickland because he is an education governor and the republican legislature has defied the ohio supreme court at least four times by not putting

in reforms for raising money for education. host: john in dumfries, virginia. republican. caller: the issue for me is the growth of government. i have worked for the government for about 16 years. some of it was part time at dod, so i was working at the private sector at the same time. there are some things that you need government to do and there are other things with government does. in my experience, the government is knocked the best mechanism to manage a lot of different things. it is a huge bureaucracy and it slows things down and you get people into power and even if they are good people they end up getting a little bit corrupted and the system could be more efficient. that generally is the direction. i am not a libertarian. we need to have a government and there are things that has to do. host: from "politico," boehner

looks to longworth. this is from "politico" this morning. leroy, south carolina. good morning.

go ahead. caller: doing good, how are you doing? host: i'm good. caller: yes, sir. host: what is the issue? caller: my issue is i just feel like president obama has been doing a pretty good. the issue is really -- you know. host: we will try this again. you have to turn down the volume, otherwise you will get the feedback and stops the show. eric in brooklyn, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i just one of the echo of the voice of the first caller. the issue that to bring every citizen to vote is it is your duty to vote and if people don't vote, that is why we have all lee's left-right crazy problems because none of the people vote and people get taken advantage of and the message gets diluted and you have extremes on the left and right.

>> is there a specific issue that motivates you? caller: it is your duty as a citizen to vote. that is the issue. i live in brooklyn. i know pretty much who is going to get elected. because it is a consistent democrat majority here. but that doesn't matter to me. if it was a hot race or a cold breeze, i would still be out there voting because it is my duty as a citizen to vote. host: cocochef tweets in -- from "the hill" newspaper this morning, republicans aren't in the mood for compromise especially on repealing health care reform. john boehner said on wednesday -- distance himself from the

senior senator suggestion last week that trying to repeal the new health care reform law was not in the republicans' best interest. "this is not a time for compromise, and i can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles, what boehner said during an appearance on conservative sean hannity's radio show. leroy, are you there? we will move on to harrisburg, pennsylvania. caller: the issue for me is the economy. and i really don't know how we will turn it around when 20% of our wealth last year was made on shuffling paper on wall street. and the corporations are waiting for republicans to get back in because they are afraid of tax policy. other than that, i would like to make a comment on the fellow that step of the girl's head in kentucky. i am a 57-year-old ex-marine, not like i was when i was 25 but

i would like to meet that guy in a bar somewhere. host: republican line, what is getting you out? caller: to get our country strong again and getting us to compete in of global markets. host: economic issues? caller: absolutely, and economic issues. we need to be able to compete. host: what policy would you recommend? caller: policy? not really sure. host: midway, georgia. independent line. caller: i would like to know why people think the republicans are so good when all they have done a -- they sat on the unemployment bill for five weeks while they went on vacation. let people put their kids to bed hungry, get evicted from their homes. they sat on that -- everything

that is been proposed. help the economy and produce jobs -- the republicans have either filibustered, sat on or in some way distorted it. host: bill, is it fair to say that what motivates you to the polls is an anti-republican vote? caller: you got that. and i had been born and raised a republican. host: rick, republican line, middletown, new york. what is your issue? caller: i always vote. i saw ron paul -- he was the start of the national tea party. and conway, alerting his brother about a drug raid. that is a disgrace. host: rick, once again, what is going to motivate you to go to the polls in middletown, new york? caller: get rid of the correction.

-- corruption. you have to look at the real reason for the tea party, it was the ron paul revolution, not coopted by the republicans or democrats. host: the house may gain a lone black republican. if election night goes his way, as many expect, tim scott from south carolina will be a figure washington has not seen in decades, a black republican in congress.

that is in "the chicago tribune" this morning. democrat, what is the issue getting you to the polls. caller: what president obama is trying to do. to help everybody, not just blacks. all the negative ads, the negative talk. i feel they need to pray. host: from "the new york post" this morning, the joke is on obama. this is about the jon stewart appearance on "the daily show." he revived his signature is slogan from the campaign -- but it is not going to happen overnight. this is just a little bit from last night's appearance. >> i know a lot of folks feel frustrated about congress, how

it operates, the bickering, the weird rules, the filibuster's, all of that stuff but the fact is there are a bunch of folks who, during the course of this year, took really tough votes that they knew were bad politics because they thought they were the right things to do. [applause] there are a whole bunch of democrats -- guys like tom pieriello in va or betsy markey in colorado were basically in republican districts, they won in the big surge we had in 2008. they knew it was going to be a tough battle. that these are generally pretty conservative districts. and yet still went ahead and did what they thought was right. and my hope in this election is that people will vote on the

basis of what they think is right and have integrity and are not just thinking about the next election but thinking about the next generation, that they are rewarded. host: a couple of e-mails -- pennsylvania. fred, independent line. what is getting you out to the balls -- polls? caller: i am voting to get rid of all incumbents, career politicians. a big problem, it does not change. for 40 years, the same old story. republicans did this, they get in, democrats do this.

people and about the same spoiled recipe. we need an overhaul. host: from the front page of " the politico" this morning, representative charles rangel is headed into a november 15 ethics trial with no lawyers, little money and a risky strategy that may turn this trial into a political showdown rather than a legal face-off, according to sources close to the democrat. allentown, pennsylvania. brian, republican line. good morning.

caller: the reason i am going on tuesday, other than it is my duty, is that i agree with the last caller, more of an anti- incumbent thing. i am kind of tired of the politicians getting in and just going along with the party line continually. it is as if nobody has their own mind. they promised this and then you go win and you look at their voting record and a vote straight democratic if they are democrat or straight republican if you are republican. they are not doing necessarily what is best for their constituency but what is best for their party. host: kansas city, missouri. anthony, a democrat. caller: how are you doing? my problem and what has got me going out to vote tuesday is hypocrisy and the inability to get anything done in washington. what i mean by hypocrisy is, you

have democrats and republican politicians who are against health care but if i am not wrong -- correct me -- doesn't tax dollars, our tax dollars pay for their health care? on the hypocrisy side, it is ok for these lifetime career politicians to say these things that health care is going to work, but their health care is already there for them. what did they have to worry about? and the people who don't have health care or whatever, need to get out and vote. the reason i vote is i am arkansas-american, not african -- i'm a black man. i love this country. this is the best country in the world. host: the next call comes from mexico. linda, good morning. caller: one of the main reasons that i think i am going out to vote especially this year is because i hear so many people's

opinions about things and they don't seem to have come to that opinion by using their brain power. it is like they hear a remark and a grab onto it and they call into c-span and it is like, they are just regurgitating something and it scares me that some of these people go out to vote. maybe my vote will not count except maybe to counsel -- counter. i don't think people are thinking through things and looking at all sides and saying, i don't know for sure about all that. let me look into that. i think that may be why i am voting this year. host: from "politico" for dems, times might get tougher.

next call comes from strasbourg, pennsylvania. ruth, a democrat. are you with us? we will move on to biloxi. what gets you to the polls? caller: i am voting against the incumbents. i think any income that has had plenty of time to be part of the solution and they are part of the problem. the congressmen and senators vote themselves a raise. most folks are out of work. i think we need new blood in congress and maybe they can cooperate in get something done.

host: "-- this is from "roll call." >> we go live to the national press club for the discussion on a new measuring business attitude toward the supreme court's landmark decision and citizens united. this is live coverage. >> on behalf of the ced's president charlie cobb and trusties from across the country, we welcome you today to this forum on money and politics in the post citizens united era. before we begin the program, and hear from the speakers, i want to say something somethingced and then something about how the program is going to transpire. ced is a washington-based public policy organization comprised of

over 200 business leaders from across the country and some university presidents. we are the organization that helped bring you the marshall plan. in fact, ced's routes can be trade-founded in the 1940's. how have an orderly transition moving the economy from a wartime to a peacetime economy. ced's one of the earlier policy studies became the blueprint for the marshall plan. paul first chairman hoffman was the first administrator of the marshall plan. for close to 70 years, ced has provided a business perspective on a wide array of economic and social issues. as many of you know, ced has a history of engagement around how many affects the political process. our landmark 1999 study investing in the people's

business called for among other things a ban on soft money. of course, the 2002 release of justice for hire raised concerns about how money going into judicial campaigns can affect a fair and impartial judiciary. the in light of the supreme court's ruling and citizens united, ced has reunited are campaign finance reform and judicial selections of committees and formed a committee called money and politics committee. we're pleased that it came as an landon rowland have agreed to co-chair this and we will hear from them shortly. earlier this week, ced's president charlie cobb was quoted in a column sank elections are a public good, not a private exchange or private commodity. for over a decade, ced has been the business voice speaking out against unregulated and unlimited funds going into

political campaigns. as our trustees have said, ced would rather compete in the marketplace and not in the political arena. a little bit about the program today. first off will be ed kangas and landon rowland who will provide a business perspective and convey some of their concerns about this new political landscape. next we will hear from sam rodgers from zogby international and he will highlight a poll which is connected with the zogby. i think when you see some of the results, it validates some of the things that'sed and linda will talk about. finally, we will hear from our experts, fred wertheimer from democracy 21, jeanne cummings from politico, understand is on her way. and 20 carotid from columbia -- columbia, sorry, colby college.

our format will be that ar speakers can speak behind the microphones here at the head table except for sam. let me talk ed and landon. ed served from 1989 to 2000 that delayed. he served as the managing partner of deloitte touche usa from 1989 to 1994. he was elected managing partner and chief executive officer in 1985, a position he held to 1989. he began his career as a staff accountant at touche ross in 1967 or become a partner in 1975. he also served as a director for several public companies and those of you involved in this issue can remember that he really has been the leading voice in business.

we are pleased to have you with us. next to hear from landon rowland. he is director and chairman emeritus of janice capital group and the ced trustee. previously, he was chairman and president and ceo of kansas city southern industries. landon rowland joined kansas city southern in 1980 became chief operating officer in 1983 and served as the chief executive officer from 1987- 2000. landon rowland has been concerned unspoken subsequently about the money going into the judicial races -- has spoken eloquently about the money going into the judicial races. i want to turn the microphone over to them. thank you. >> thank you, mike. our political system is so badly corrupted it is imploding from our eyes.

our politicians are so obsessed with maintaining power and being reelected the they engage in two corrosive practices. number one, they accept and support huge political contributions and related spending by the powerful and the rich from individuals, corporations, unions and special interest groups, and in return, they grant access in favoritism. no. 2, they by voters for today's votes todaybuy votes at the expense of future voters, most of whom are not yet old enough to vote and many who have not yet been born. this has become so blatant and

so obvious that the american people have finally figured it out. a revolt is under way. next tuesday, the frustration, the wrath that will vaporize incumbents from both parties will be evidence of this revolt. many believe -- or it least some believe, that this will create chaos in a dysfunctional situation in washington. some say the voters do not know what they're going to do. these political elitists are dead wrong. the reality is that americans, business leaders, working men and women, mothers, fathers, grandparents have come to the conclusion that chaos in a dysfunctional washington is far,

far better than what we have now. it will be in the aftermath of next tuesday's elections that we will start a new. and there are two things that must be done. one, we must stop the corruption of money from the rich and powerful on our election process. we must return power to the average american with an effective government funded multiple match of smaller contributions. two, we must insist our political leaders concern themselves as much, if not more, with voters of the future generation than they do with the voters of today. this first -- the first step in rebuilding his political system is reform campaign financing.

what is going on is bad for business, bad for our economy, bad for job creation. the committee for economic development is a group of ceo's and university presidents. we believe in transparency. we know transparency requires light. and so starting again today, we're going to focus a bright light of laser intensity on the campaign finance issue so that finally, once and for all, it is fixed forever. my mother told me when people are nice enough to listen tentatively to say thank you. i thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> landon? >> it is hard to ed kangas follow when he has so much zeal

and brings tremendous zeal to this challenge. he has been working at for a long time and his views are entitled to respect. his prescription is one that everyone of us should walk out of here with and find some way to apply it. the citizens united case, which in some way, brings to a focus our concerns about the corrupting influence of a sea of money with no place to go except to influence people in high office or those aspiring to high office. his approach is sensible, practical, and our task to get legislators and others to endorse them. the citizens united case it accelerates the long slide toward the kleptocracy that we criticize all over the world and that frustrates international

commerce, investment, policy and investment opportunities, bribery, bribery, bribery and all of these foreign lands has always been criticized by those of us in the u.s. who thought we had a higher standard. that standard has slipped away. you see it in the process of buying elections of every kind. we have local elections that all of you are participating in that are just as corrupted by the sea of money as a larger raises for house and senate and other places. it reflects the frustration ed is talking about, but the idea that one may buy government because we have the means to do so must be addressed but every citizen. it must be resisted, certainly. mike talked about the ced's work to ensure independence of the

judiciary. very quietly, steadily, there have been efforts by those with more money than thought about the damage to the independent judiciary in this country, have been eroding the world of the judiciary with elected judges, elected judges who respond to the same ills that ed has described. there are all kinds of bailiwicks in which we can be active to resist the influence of money, certainly, we must guard at the local level. we must start in the local communities to resist any kind of effort that we seek to buy elections with a lot of money. i am from missouri. we see the most trivial elections, perhaps, influenced by large amounts of money. elections that never cost more

than $5,000 to run for some local office and all the sudden somebody comes up with $100,000 or two of a thousand dollars to get some elected. this is crazy. -- $100,000 or two under thousand dollars to get someone elected. this is crazy. we must call back from some of the principles of the corporate personality. one of my colleagues here on the panel described the role of the corporation as a creature of the state. it was given life by the state. and that life can be limited. it is not the same as the rights that we have as individuals, as human beings. and it is probably a cliche and a platitude to suggest corporations cannot be restrained in the exercise of human rights. please, indorse ed kangas's

three principals. you'll hear some animated debate. but we're not kleptocracy. russia may be a kleptocracy. some of the saw the article in "the financial times close vote yesterday or the other day about the rampant spread of bribery of a the country that frustrates economic development. the lack of an independent judiciary frustrates economic development. plenty of studies show this. this is not a kleptocracy. he was going to talk on the panel first, mike? >> well, thank you, landon rowland, to do for your leadership here. what we're going to do is hold questions until the end. we're going to hear sam rodgers from zogby who will summarize, if you will, some of the findings of this recent survey. sam serves as a communications director and spokesman for

zogby international. he joined zogby as a research analyst in 2006. i think when you see the results, wanting a particular that will stand out is the last few questions -- one thing a particular that will stand out is the last few questions on corporate giving. it seemed overwhelmingly that corporate leaders were in favor of publicly disclosing their giving, not just the political giving or just political giving but trade associations. sam, it is your turn to join the podium. >> thank you. hello. thank you all. i want to thank ced, mike, the distinguished panel. it is great to be working with ced and get on such an important issue. i believe this is one of the more interesting polls we have done during this election cycle.

i want to go through the topline findings from the 30,000 the perspective. we did this survey over the course of the last week. it is not moving. as is usual the case, things never worked when they're supposed to. this is the business leaders were conducted over the telephone and over the internet. it was a list of over 300. the main focus was to look at the world post citizens united of campaign finance from the perspective of business leaders. still nothing. but i can talk about with the general findings are. you just missed a few pie charts. nothing. >> i am not sure, but i think we may have the slides in people's pockets.

-- packets. that's where the second and see if we can get this resolved. since this is being taped, we want to get this on there. >> ok. well, >> well, what we just start and if everyone can refer to your material and, hopefully, we will get this snags' solved. all right? >> sure thing. we try to look at this, a fairly short pole, no more than 20 questions in here, in a particular fashion. we wanted to divide this up into

basically four categories and start off with the big picture perspective of what the world of campaign finance looks like in general, from the bitter- business leadership perspective. then a few questions specifically on the case of citizens united and other potential policies and solutions. we have someone look at corporations and their actual experience with campaign finance, and what the work currently engaged in, with their current activities were. then the tested a series of statements, support for statements that involve specific campaign finance measures, potential measures, potential policy options and potential strategies for dealing with the campaign finance issue from a corporate perspective. in general, the findings were, i believe, an honest assessment and fairly revealing. sorry.

>> i think we will have to do this manually. >> if it starts magically moving -- first, over 300 business leaders were surveyed over the past few weeks. we asked what level of pressure people felts american corporate leaders -- was placed on american corporate leaders to give political contributions. 61% said there was a lot or some pressure placed on them as business leaders to make political contributions. 28% said not much pressure placed. almost two in three business leaders say there's some pressure placed on them to make these political contributions. then we asked, what comes closest to their opinion about why corporations are making his political contributions. by far, the number one reason he was to gain access to influence

the legislative process. 55%, a majority. the next clause as response was to avoid adverse legislative contour -- consequences. 17%. to promote, 16%. so we can see a fairly strong agreement there that gaining access to influence the legislative process, number one reason for these corporate donations. the next question, asked about killing lover of pressure being placed on american business leaders to make political contributions. -- asked about political pressure being placed on american business leaders to make political contributions. 49% said they see an increased amount of pressure being placed on business leaders in the past two years to give these kinds of donations. only 3% say that pressure has decreased. 39% about the same. not even close we have a clear

majority or right at a majority saying the amount of pressure has increased and 39% said about the same. then we asked business leaders, how would you describe the amount of money being solicited from business leaders? is excessive, too high but not excessive, moderate or below? 29% said excessive. 22% said high, but not excessive. that is the majority of business leaders saying it is excessive or high. again, that was clear majority. only 12% said they believed it was too low. then we asked about the level of concern. how concerned are you that these contributions are going to third party groups to be used for negative campaign advertising? 45% said they believed business

leaders are concerned about that issue. 48% said they were not concerned. here we see a case where fairly even divide, one of the few times a year in this survey, over the level of concern for these third-party contributions to negative political advertising. this is the section of the poll where we got into familiarity with citizens united. we asked people initially right off the start how familiar they were as a business leader with citizens united ruling from this most recent court. 58% had some familiarity. a 20% were very familiar. 39%, somewhat. 41% were not familiar including 21% who were not at all familiar. it is still not at the forefront, i guess, of the minds of some business leaders. then we proceeded to read a

brief statement summarizing the ruling for those who were not familiar. then we ask the question about agreement with the founding idea behind the ruling, which is, i will read the statement -- do you agree or disagree that corporations, unions and associations should give unlimited an undisclosed contributions to other organizations to be spent on campaign advertising? 43% agreed with the statement. less than a majority, barely more than two in five business leaders agree with the general principle behind this citizens united ruling. 51% disagreed with that. 7% said they were not sure. as was alluded to earlier, we asked a little bit of a statement here, a potential policy option for what could be done to possibly mitigate some of what that ruling has done to our campaign finance system.

this statement simply gave the option of a multiple dollar match for small contributions of a 4-1 match of contributions up to $250, which is a policy proposal that has been offered as some say levels, i believe in that policy tested with 52% support and 42% opposition including 20% who strongly supported, 24% who said this sum was supported the position. -- 28% who strongly supported. 24% said some was supported. 6% were not sure. we then move into the third phase of the survey which covered experience with campaign finance to date. has your, in any political contributions of the 2010 election cycle? 19% said they had. 67% said they had not.

40% were not sure. of those who had -- 14% were not sure. of those who had, a 16% said they gave to a pack or other organization to be spent specifically on campaign advertising. one in four, 24% said they had not. 14% said they were not sure. do you think that corporate donations to infants election outcomes overall, a good thing or a bad thing for the political process? 50% said they believed it was a bad thing. only 38% said it was a good thing. 13% said they were not sure. then we finally get into the last stage of the survey where we get into influence and specific policy options. how much influence do think corporations have a political process? 91% said either very great influence or some influence.

so that is almost nine times the amount who said no influence at all we came in with the last of the said which was, which of the following do think as the most influence over a candidate? gave them >> to potential options. contribution from a corporate pac or the beginning pack, 59%. they believed it had the greatest influence over a candidate when compared with a meeting with a lobbyist, 15%. meeting with a citizens group, 10%, or receiving a small contribution for small contributions from average citizens, 9%. over five-one say a contribution from a corporate pac or labor union pac is in the most influence over a candidate. -- gives them the most influence

over a candidate. if finance reform or to restrict contributions from how you think it would impact the business community? 43% said they believed it would have a negative impact. 25% said their road be no change. 20% believed it would have a positive impact. finally, we get into support for a series of statements that we asked. i will do these in order of the increasing level of support for the statements, starting with a statement received the lowest level of support. i should note all tests received thethe majority of support. the transparency encourages behavior, puts corporations of legal risk and endangers our reputations. 66% supported that statement. two in three. the next highest, company

contributions to outside organizations should be restricted to nonpolitical purposes unless expressly permitted by the board or shareholders. 74% supported that statement. 77%. politically active organizations to which a company contributes should disclose their company -- to the company to direct and indirect political expenditures, at 88% supported that. finally, corporate boards should be informed of the beneficiaries purposes of the company's direct and indirect political spending , at 93%. so we see again all five receiving well over a majority support ranging from 2/3 with the first statement to must near unanimous support for the previous statement. all in all, we believe a very honest assessment, a very frank assessment of the state of campaign funds from the perspective of these business

leaders as a whole i think sums up the pole. thank you. sorry about the lack of pie charts and such. >> thank you for some very interesting results. i think we'll have time to and the question and answer to talk is over. sam, i want to confirm, i believe it was over 301 who were tested on the survey questionnaire >> that is correct. -- on the survey? >> that is correct. >> i will introduce the panel in order of their speaking assignments. fred wertheimer is the founder and president of democracy 21, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that works to strengthen our democracy and for most government integrity, accountability, and transparency. he has been described in the new york times as the country's leading proponent of campaign finance reform and the dean of

the campaign finance reformers. many of you will remember fred wertheimer for his many years of service as the president of common cause and we'll have to have you here. next would be jeanne cummings, who i think is here. >> sorry. >> no problem. politico assistant managing editor in charge of enterprise, covering politics at every level from state and local governments to five presidential campaigns. in recent years, her focus has been on tracking money and politics. she was recruited from wall street journal. i think that is where we met you several years ago. before that, jeanne cummings was with the atlanta journal constitution. it is great to have you. finally, anthony corrado is the charles a. dana professor of government at call the

college. he serves as chair of the board of the campaign finance institute, a nonpartisan public policy based in washington, d.c. tony is the co-author of several books but his most notable for serving as a project director for ced's 3 -- subcommittees' now on the floor. welcome. i will turn it over to fred wertheimer and asking panelists for five or six minutes of comments and then we will go to the question and answer. >> thank you, mike. i want to thank ced and its president charlie cobb for holding this and also thank ed kangas landon rowland and for the leadership there providing on this issue. i was privileged to work with ced a decade ago when they played a powerful and pivotal role in the passing of the 2002 bipartisan campaign reform act

to ban soft money. they're coming back into this issue is a very important development for the campaign finance reform battles that lie ahead. we are watching a sea change unfolding in american politics in this election. as a result, a disastrous supreme court decision, citizens united decision, one of the worst decisions this court has ever made, this is the first election in more than 60 years were corporations and labor unions are free to make expenditures in federal elections. it is also the first election in more than 40 years where hundreds of millions of dollars of secret contributions are being spent in federal elections. if anyone doubts what is going on today stems from the decisions -- two decisions by the roberts corp., i will give you one example. none of these ads being run by tax-exempt organizations with

secret contributions during this period of the 60 days before the general election could have been run to the prior to the roberts court's decisions for it absent those decisions, the mcconnell decision, upheld law which would have banned corporations, labor unions, tax- exempt groups that are incorporated from running these ads about candidates in the last 60 days of an election. history tells us that secret money and political campaign breeds corruption and scandal. al hunt who has reported on these issues for 30 years wrote the following in a column recently -- the prediction. the u.s. is due for a huge scandal involving big money, of bribery and politicians. not the small fry that dominates the ethics fights in washington,

but really big stuff. think watergate. then he said, it is axiomatic in politics that without accountability there is abuse. this year, there is a massive infusion of special interest money into u.s. politics that is secret, not reported. now history also tells us that as secrecy the gets scandal, scandal begins reform. in the 1970's, the watergate scandals resulted in the creation of the landmark presidential public financing system which serves the nation well for most of its existence until it became outdated and now has to be repaired. the watergate scandal also led to the central limits on contributions to candidates and parties which the supreme court upheld as necessary to present corruption of our office holders and our government decisions. money 1990's, the soft scandals resulted in a $500

million corrupt soft money system led to the enactment of the bi-partisan campaign finance reform act in 2002, which banned unlimited soft money contributions to the parties. i would just remind people that that legislation was enacted and signed into a law under republican presidents, a republican controlled house of representatives, and a senate that was barely controlled by the democrats, 51 of 49. similarly, the unfolding scandals were all the secret contributions are playing in this election and the great dangers that lie ahead will open the door to important new campaign finance reforms. and no one should make the mistake of thinking we can solve these problems by taking the limits of contributions to parties are greatly increasing them -- or greatly increasing them. that would creek the system of

legalized bribery that congress correctly ended by banning soft money and that the supreme court reaffirmed as constitutional this year. former republican senator in redmond from new hampshire provided an affidavit in support of the soft minivan and said the following -- individuals on both sides of the table recognize that larger donations effectively purchased greater benefits for donors. he also said -- make no mistake about it, a large soft money contributions affect outcomes. so there is no going back to the old soft money system without creating a system, really, of ongoing bribery or legalized bribery of the public officials. those of us who support strong and effective campaign finance laws are in a rough patch right now. it is in large part because we are facing also supreme court

for the first time since the biden campaign finance right movement began in the 1970's. -- bodden. anyone who thinks campaign fund its supporters are going to fold their tent and go way does not understand the campaign finance reform community and does not understand the history of campaign finance reforms. there is going to be a public backlash after this election to what has happened here. and this is going to provide the opportunity to build a broader and more diverse coalition of the voices throughout the country for financing the way -- for reforming the way we finance our elections and ced can play a pivotal role in this as they have done before. have done before.