coordinated or established by single person. we know that a total of 5000 times 40 will go to the sam smith. what does that filed it? >> there are 8 -- what does that violate? rocks there are a couple of problems with that -- >> there are a couple of problems with that, your honor. there are a total of $5,000 that .an be given to a pac >> 5000 times 4000. five times 40, 5 times 400, how much is that? earmarking without proliferation -- >> no earmarking. it requires that you write the check or in a company letter that you want the money to go to -- >> it does not. the relations are broader than that. if you have a pac that will continued only to one candidate

-- >> no, they will contribute to several because they will get more than one contribution. >> at that point, you don't have the country's ability are talking about because there's more money coming into the pac then can find its way into any one particular candidate. you can name the pac after candidate as the hypothetical assumes. i would assume the commission wouldn't come back to you after -- come after you for your marking. >> if you have 100 pac's and each of them say they will support the five candidates in the most contested senate races. five really contested senate races and they say they will support those five candidates. so a donor gives $5,000 to each of those 100 pac's, which supports those candidates. the pac divides up the money. $1000 goes to each candidate.

pac's,al for those $100,000 goes to each of the fivee candidates and the most contested races. 20 times with the individual contribution limits allow. thatcouple of responses to -- first of all, we are talking about scenarios where there isn't coronation at all between the first person who makes a contribution and the candidate receiving it. >> ease candidate knows all of his $100,000 donors. there are not all that many of them. he can keep them all in his head in a mental rolodex. >> but they are not actually donors to him at that point. they are contributing to a pac that come in your hypothetical, is contributing to various -- >> they give a thousand dollars to each of five candidates who become the five senators that are most attuned to donors. he knows who has given him $100,000. each of those five senators who

gets in on the strength of these contributions that are 20 times what the individual limits allow . >> i don't think it works to think of the zester at antributions in excess of summons because the pac is limited itself on how much you can contribute -- -- whate trying to do we are tried to do is that we -- or my all the rules locker did -- and what she discovered is there has been no significant change in the earmarking rules or any of the rules a you're talking about but for one. change change is the that all contributions made by political committees established by or financed or maintained or controlled by a single portion

-- a single person will count as one. so what you see in these hypotheticals are simply the construction of precisely the same situation that existed in buckley while being careful to have not one person control the 4000 pack, which is pretty easy to do. and if you want to say is this a reality? turn on your television or internet because we have seen instances without naming names were there is certainly a reality. >> there are changes in air marking, more than what you suggested because the restrictions that is in regulation cover more than the statute itself. specifically, they cover these instances of aipac that will only be contributing to one candidate, which is where a lot of the concern comes from. >> i want you to be clear about your answer to justice kagan, her hypothetical. -- ist of your and so part of your answer contravene

air marking? >> 8-k -- contravene earmarking? >> if we are talking about a pac -- >> part of your answer to her, and hypothetical, is your and is going to happen -- israel and is going to happen? would the other side concede that this is true? >> i doubt they would concede aat is true, but if you have bunch of pac's that are getting contributions to same group of individuals, you will run into earmarking and proliferation restrictions. i can imagine that if you have aipac this is we are going to give to smith that's bad. if you have aipac this is we are going to give all the money that you contribute to us to smith and jones, that's ok. .r smith jones and three others it seems to me that that is

earmarking. >> exactly. if you know -- >> if you think it is air marking that gives to the five most contested races come i don't think any sec would say that that is earmarking. >> i have an overly suspicious mind. pac's rise up and all of them said exactly the same thing -- we are going to make contributions to the five most contested senate candidates to the candidates in the five most contested senate races, i would be suspicious. ftc would also be suspicious. i suppose the number that want to cut down on governmental spending and we know there's only about four people that are

like that. [laughter] >> at that point, when you have with that any certainty and what they will do, it's not clear to be targeted because the pack maybe spending ways where they are not a conduit for circumvention. i think that gets again to why the us and that's why this doesn't have the kind of coordination -- chris there are 150 house candidates would completely safe seats. and there are maybe 30 or 40 or something like that in their party who don't have safe seats. so the 150 gets together and they say we are going to run a joint fundraiser. anybody can contribute $2600 to each of these candidates. 150 of them. so that makes about $400,000.

in these 150 candidates with completely safe seats transfer all this money to the one person who doesn't have a safe seat can so that -- safe seat. so that's about four hundred thousand dollars" primary or a general election. that is about $800,000 that all goes to one candidate from one forr because of the ability candidates to transfer money to each other. not legal, justice kagan. they do not have the ability to transfer money to each other. is $2600 toum another candidate per election. >> a candidate can transfer $2000 to a candidate for election. a hard contribution limit on how much they can contribute. but i think all of this also gets another problem which there is an overbreadth problem and if you are talking about the scenario come in your scenario, there's only one person who can even make contributions. after the first $2600 --

>> you're exactly right. ane person can make $800,000 commission to a house race. and then with these 150 candidates can do is they can do for every single other candidate in the contested seat. so take your 30 or 40 contested seats. and if it comes to conduit for a single person to make an $800,000 contribution to a candidate in a contested district. >> even if you accept the scenario where all of these candidates are independently deciding to give all their money to one candidate, you can't have a law that is designed to prevent one person from circumvention i prohibiting everybody else from engaging in contributions that don't -- ms. murphy, can you give us an idea of who is expressing -- is at stake. most people couldn't come even

near the limit. -- is thereentage any information on what percentage of all contributors are able to contribute over the aggregate? ondon't have a percentage who is able. we are talking about more individuals than when the first rights.t that fish percently prohibits two -- but it is a speech of two percent of the country is ok. >> absolutely not. >> we haven't talked it about the effect of the aggregate limits on the ability of owners to give the minimum amount to as many candidates as they want. the effect of the aggregate limits is to limit someone's hunter mission of the maximum amount to about nine candidates. >> that's right. >> is there a way to eliminate

that aspect while maintaining some of the aggregate limits? is that a necessary consequence of any you have, bit -- you have aggregate limits? is certainly a necessary consequence where there is a distinct aggregate limit on contributions to candidates alone. i think that the aggregate limits alone will always have the effect of prohibiting people from giving contributions that don't themselves give rise to quid pro quo corruption concerns. so the government is concerned and there are mayor evan is to get them. mirror avenues to get at them. >> i'm a little confused. this decision was based on a motion to dismiss and there is a huge coakley about what happens colloquy't -- a huge quality e

about what happens and what doesn't. it is hard to think that any candidate doesn't know a contributor who has enough money to give not only to himself or herself, but to any of his or her affiliates who are supporting him are her. sense hardy common to dispute. so you are saying it can't happen, but i don't see charges of coordination going on that much. >> i guess i'm not sure where you talking about happening. if we are talking about knowing that some individuals are making contributions to other candidates for state parties who are not going to share those contributions with a particular candidate, then i don't see how that gives rise -- actual -- i won't give the name of the candidate. you see a picture of the candidate and you see a sign

that says smith pac. that's what it says. donation to make a help smith pac support republican if you like your democratic. and then it has an address. it doesn't take a genius to figure that they will do with the money and that may be smith will get a pretty good share of it. if smith has 400 people who figure this out, he will have 400 times $5,000 times one percent. you say that really couldn't happen because of the designation. we haven't found a designation rule that would stop it. but what justice sotomayor is saying is i don't know and i don't either because it has been no hearing among no evidence presented, nothing but dismissal. first, the case was on cross- motion for for junction for relief. it shows to treat this as a

legal case, not one in which -- >> do we need a record to figure out issues of law? >> that is my second point. >> i agree -- [laughter] i agree that this campaign- finance law is so intricate that i can't figure it out here and it might have been nice to have the lower court tell me what the law is, but we don't normally require a record to decide questions of law. >> and you should need one here either because these limits are facially -- >> you're taking a position that the law stops corruption. and you're suggesting that the government is incapable of showing fax that the law doesn't work. proveyou need facts to that proposition or disprove that proposition? couldn if the government disprove that proposition, there

would be an over and under -- >> thank you. >> sarah mcconnell agrees that this aggregate limit does not pass exacting scrutiny. the center -- the senator mcconnell believes that all researchers of this nature should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. to begin with, this is a severe restriction on political speech. i would like you to address this question about the restriction on speech. it has been argued that these limits promote expression, promote democratic participation because what they require the candidate to do is come instead fundraising ong the super affluent, the candidate would have to try to raise money more broadly in the

electorate. by having these limits, you are promoting democratic participation. and you won't have the super the speakers who will control election. >> i disagree with that for this reason. first of all, the aggregate placesn local parties like minded local parties in the position of competing against each other rather than collaborating with each other. all the national political parties from the republican side compete against each other for an artificially limited pool of money from each contributor. the same is true on the candidate side. they compete against each other for the same artificially limited pool of money. even though each individual contribution to the candidate or to the party is limited by the base. the federal election commission regulations, and i would propose

that you would look at section specifically prohibits a pac of the nature you described. if a person country was to a pc goesith knowledge that it to a particular candidate, that is an earmark. that thecorrect consequence of this provision has been very severe with respect to national political parties? >> it is, your honors, particularly in the current environment where they are being -- >> and much of the money the used go to them now goes to pacs . isn't that what has happened? >> tracked. >> so this is really turning the regulating elections. i asked myself why would members of congress want to hurt their political parties?

can i answer? i answer to myself -- [laughter] well, ordinarily, the national political parties will devote inir money to elections those states where the incumbent has a good chance of losing. so in fact, if you are an incumbent who cares about political parties, i don't want money to go to my opponents. amountyou turn down the of money that the national clinical parties have, that is much less money that can be devoted against you if you're challenged in a close race. isn't that the consequence of this? >> let me see you and raise you one. there are separate limits here for candidates and for political parties. the effect of this is to insulate the incumbents from competing with political parties for the dollars. and by imposing a cap on the candidate, on the amount

candidates can raise, the incumbents realize that they are the favored class among candidates who will be getting the contributions. it that hasn't worked out that way in practice? in fact, it is the challenges you are aiding. there is a hard cap on the number any contributor can give to all candidates and a separate -- on the amount >> in one summer come i spent several weeks reading the record before the district court in that very link the case on this. and it was filled with testimony i senators and congressmen with a handful of people that can give hundreds of thousands of dollars. they know who those people are and that those people do have undue influence, which means, in first amendment terms, that the individual who in fact has wonderful ideas and

convinces others, even by a three cents by the internet, hasn't a shot because it will influence people, not ideas, but the money. there is a record on that. here, there is no record showing whether this aspect does or does not have the same tendency. that is why i ask how can i decide this on the basis of theory when the record previously shows the contrary of what has been argued and at least might show that even in respect to these limits? >> this case comes to the court challenge.ed mr. mccutchen doesn't want to go through the committee's return -- the committees we are talking about. he wants to write checks to record to the candidate sent directly to the committees. he is constrained by the aggregate limit. >> but he can write checks to

everyone he wants to. he just can't give the special number 1776. but if he wants to give a contribution to every candidate running for a congressional seat, he would be limited to $86 or something like that. >> but in his own case it would be something over thousand dollars because he identified 12 more candidates that you would like to give 1776 to but he would like to give each of them over thousand dollars. >> he could, but your diminishing his right to associate and the intensity of his association by applying this aggregate limit. take off the aggregate limits, people will be allowed to put together the national committees in all the state committees all the candidates in the house and the senate. over $3.5 million. so i can write checks totaling $3.5 million for the republican party committees and all its candidates or the democratic

party and all of its limits. having written a check for 3.5 million dollars or so to a single parties candidates, are you suggesting that that party and the members of that party are not going to owe me anything? that i won't get any special treatment? because i thought that was exactly what we said in the,, that when we talked about soft- money restrictions, we understood that when you give $3.5 million, you get a very special place at the table. so this is effectively to reintroduce the soft-money scheme of mcconnell to my isn't it? >> no, your honor, it is not because mcconnell dealt with a situation where you are not considering the base limits. the soft money by definition was not subject to the base limits. you take your example of the joint fundraising committee, the joint fundraising regulation which consumes more than three pages in the federal code of

iteral relations, specifically reaffirms the base limits. it specifically reaffirms the earmarking restriction and it says that the joint fundraising committee must inform all contributors of those restrictions. again, it's a situation where the money leaves the contributor's hands and he loses control over and the person -- >> the money goes to a single party and, indeed, i could make this even worse. i could say to the speaker of the house or the majority leader , they solicit this money from particular people. so solicit somebody to do the of his $3.6 million. kennedy saidtice mcconnell, the making of the solicited gift is equated both to the recipient of the money and to the one who solicits the payment. uid to both the

recipient of the money into the one who solicits the payment. >> in the citizens united decision, gratitude are not considered to be quid pro quo corruption. my think there's what you're talking about. that is not the sort of corruption that would sustain this limit, especially in light of the severe restrictions on speech and association that it imposes as the political parties compete against each other and as the candidates have to compete each other. sustain aggregate limits. what has changed since buckley? >> the statute has changed significantly to impose base limits on the parties, both the state and federal parties. it has changed to prohibit proliferation of political committees give one of the concerns and buckley was the dairy industry which contributed to hundreds of pacs supporting president nixon's reelection.

as i read the lower court in buckley, that is correct. in addition, you also have -- you have a thick volume of a coat of regular editions for the federal election commission which did not exist at the time of buckley. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, your honor. >> mr. chief justice and it may please the court. aggregate limits, corruption. let me start explaining exact we have. aggregate limits combat corruption both by blocking circumvention of individual contribution limits and equally fundamentally by serving as a bulwark against a campaign- dominated bym massive individual contributions in which the dangers of quid pro quo corruption would be obvious and inherent and the corrosive appearance of corruption would be overwhelming to know the appellants in this case have tried to present the case as though the issue were whether

there was some corrupting potential in giving contribution to the 19 candidate after someone has arctic intruded the maximum to the 18th. that is not what this case is about. the appellants are not arguing that the every limit is drawn in the wrong place. they are arguing that there can be no aggregate limit because the base contribution limits do all the work. what that means is that you are taking the lid off the graphic -- the lid off of the aggregate contribution limit. that means that an individual can contribute every two years million to candidates for a party, national committees , that is because they can transfer the funds among themselves and to a particular candidate. the possibility of prohibiting those transfers perhaps a way of protecting against that corruption

appearance while at the same time allowing an individual to contribute to however many house candidates it wants to contribute to? the concern is you have somebody in is very interested, say environmental regulation, and very interested in gun control. is that he system has to choose. will he expressed his belief in environmental regulation by donating to more than nine people there or will he chase the gun control issue? >> mr. chief justice, i want to make two different points in response to the question. the first is that restricting transfers would have a bearing on the circumvention park and it wouldn't eliminate all circumvention risks. but there is a more fundamental problem one analogous to the one that was issue with soft-money mcconnell because delivering the

$3.6 million check to whoever it is, the speaker the house, the senate majority leader, whoever it is that solicits that check, the very fact that delivering that check creates the inherent opportunity for quid pro quo corruption, executive kind of risk that the court identified in buckley. >> what is the framework for analyzing -- i agree with you on the aggregation, but it has this consequence with respect to limiting how many candidates an individual can support. limits that congress and do not present any danger of corruption. so what is the framework of analyzing that? gimme your argument with respect to the transfers and the appearance. it does have that of a consequence on something we have recognized. >> let me give a specific point. the aggregate limit would have

of restricting the ability of a contributor to make the maximum contribution to more than a certain number of candidates. that's true. we can't help but acknowledge that. it's math. but it doesn't mean that that individual cannot spend as much as the individual wants on independent expenditures to try to advance the interest of those candidates or the interest of .he causes of those candidates he can spend as much of his consider a fortune that he wants on independent expenditure advocating the election of these candidates. >> that does not evoke any gratitude on the part of the people? if gratitude is corruption, don't those independent expenditures ivo could gratitude? its --nditures ivo, got evoke gratitude?

are stopping we people from spending big money on politics. court'sdation of this jurisprudence in this area is the careful line between independent expenditures which this court has held repeatedly caset create a sufficient of quid pro quo corruption to justify their regulation and contributions which do. >> that line eliminate some of the arguments that have been made here, which are arguments against big money in politics. big money can be in politics. you can't give it to the democratic party or the republican party, but you can start your own pac. that is a benefit to our political system. >> i do think we have limits on contributions to political parties in addition to limits on countries is to candidates. i think that does help establish the point here which is that candidates are not for medically

sealed off from one another -- hermetically sealed off from one another. >> am looking for an answer here. it's not that i have one at all. i think thebasic point that is being made now. as i understand it, the whole reason -- it is no doubt that limits say you cannot get more than such and such an amount. there are 200 people in the united states and that would like to give 117,000 dollars or more. we are telling them you can't. you can support your beliefs. that is a first amendment negative. but that seems to be justified on the other side by the first amendment positive. because if the average person thinks that what he says exercise in his first amendment

rights just can't have an impact through public opinion upon his representative he says what is the point of the first amendment and that is the first amendment point. so that's basic, i think. now once that is so, congress has leeway. -- and i haveying seen it all of the place -- but that is why we don't want those 200 people to spend $117,000 because the average person after the election is election. that all of the elections are affected by the pocketbook and not the merits of the first amendment arguments. and then you say that a person can do the same thing anyway and just collect independent. and what the independent does as he can spend $40 million. he can spend $50 million. and all that does is mix up the messages because the parties can't control them. now i think that is the question that is being asked and that is a very sears question and i would like to know what flows from it?

is it true? so what? what are we supposed to do? what is your opinion? >> i have the same question. you have two persons. one person gives an amount to a candidate that's limited and the other takes out ads, o corrugated come on his own, costing $5,000. don't you think that second person has more access to the candidate when the candidate is successful than the first? i think that was the root of justice scalia's question and justice breyer's. i think the right way to think about it is this. if somebody thinks the secretary defense is doing a great job, they can take out an ad in the washington post and spent $500,000 on that ad saying the secretary defense has done a great job. an undoubtedd have

first amendment right to do that. no one can think that there is -- it is hard to think of a confidential justification for that piece. but instead, if they want to -- it would be an independent expression. wantedd, some anyone maserati, no one would think that there was a first amendment ground that would be invoked their courts we're talking about campaign contributions. isn't it illegal for a candidate to take contributions and use it to i a maserati? >> -- to buy a maserati? >> yes. is that thepoint rule against guests, the conflict of interest rules, they exist to advance a content neutral government interest of the highest importance >> what

trollope -- highest importance. >> what troubles me is that what hypotheticals that are not obviously plausible and certainly lack any imperial support. you have chosen to use the same hypothetical the district or to use about $3.5 million givenbution that could be risk involves all of the house candidates and all the senate candidates getting together in a particular year with all of the parties, national party committees plus all of the state party committees. and that is how you get up to $3.5 million figure. isn't that right? >> yes. >> how realistic is that? how realistic that all the state party committees will get money and all will transfer it to one candidate?

for 49 of them come it will be a candidate that is not in their own state and there are virtually no instances of state party committees contributing candidates from another state. the other part of it that seems dubious on its face is that all of the candidates for the house on the senate of a particular party will get together and they will transfer money to one candidate. you cited in your brief the best examples, i take it, of contributions from some candidates to other candidates. they are very small. isn't that true? >> yes. with all due respect, i think the point your honor is making confuses two different ways in which these laws combat the risk of corruption. is that thee handing over of the large check -- whether it is $3.6 million for everyone or $2.2 million for the house candidates or $1

million for the state committees masses soft-ct to money contributions and the inherent risks of corruption is an inherent risk of corruption. that is why we have limits on how much we contribute to a clinical party. that's apart from how it gets transferred. >> unless the money is transferred -- you have to get it from the person who wants to corrupt to the person who wants to -- the person who will be corrupted. and unless the money can make it from a to become i don't see where the quote argument -- where the quid pro quo argument is good >> you handle a single check to a candidate, any candidate that sets up a joint fundraising committee and says give to me and to the rest of my team. handing over the check to that andidate seems to create significant risk of indebtedness on the part of that candidate even though a lot of the money has fallen through to others. in addition, the party leaders will often be the ones who solicit those contributions and

they will have a particular indebtedness to candidates because that power their authority depends upon the party retaining or gaining a majority in the legislature. so they will feel a particular sense of indebtedness that this person is helping not only them but everybody -- >> if i can make my point -- every candidate and the party will be affected by this because every candidate will get a slice of the money and every candidate will know that this person who wrote the multimillion dollar check health not only the candidate that the whole team and that creates a pretty good sense of indebtedness. every member of the party is likely -- every office holder the party is likely to be leaned on by the party leadership to deliver legislation that people are buttering him to get. let's take this example if you can take a minute and walk through me -- walk us through me step-by-step.

this person strategy is to make contributions to multiple house , thedates with the hope expectation of a plan that those candidates will transfer the money to the member that this person wants to corrupt. how is that person going to accomplish that given the earmarking regulations and the limits on how much one member can contribute to another? possible, but if somebody had that goal, that circumvention will, by far better ways of achieving it would be giving significant -- and you had taken the aggregate caps off -- make significant contributions to state parties and national parties without restriction and by making contributions to pac's. >> if you're not going to defend the aggregation of the limits in

that situation, does it not apply -- >> i don't think so. first of all, i think it could happen in that situation. >> explains me how it will be done? the person gives to member a with the hope that member a will give it to member b. if the person even implies one making the contribution to a that the person wants to have a go to b, that is earmarked. in macconnell, this court said that earmarking is not the outer limit of the government's authority to regulate. the reason the court said that was because a lot of this can be done with links and nonsense 03. so i don't think in the case of your marking that it would work to prohibit that. but when we are talking about aggregate limits, they are part of an overall system of regulation. work to keep the circumvention risk in check and

to make sure you don't have the kind of problem that you identified -- >> what would you think? listening to your dialogue and your -- this is pretty tough. we tried to construct some hypotheticals. they all gotays this part wrong or the other one and they may be right. and we can't do this, figuring out all of these factual things in an hour. i'm not sure. there hasn't been a full hearing. it seems to me there are things to explore in respect to the circumvention. things to explore in respect to the question to be able to a $3.5 million check to a lot of people does lead the average percent to thank my first amendment speech in terms of influencing my representative means nothing. to explore ings

terms of the relationship between what is permissible, namely spend $40 million independently and what isn't her miscible, namely spending more than $117,000. none of these have been considered. they would seem relevant. so what do you think about going into these matters in a district court where the evidentiary aspects of them can be explored at some length? breyer, thatustice the statute can be upheld under the current state of the record in i understand. i take your honor sport -- your honors point. but i do think you have a substantial record in beckley, in macconnell and that they're strictly on the question of whether massive aggregate contributions pose the inherent danger of corruption and the corrosive appearance of corruption and advocates -- and the case can be decided on the basis of that --

>> it did not suggest in to thee to this -- proceedings before the three- judge court to have an evidentiary hearing. both sides take this as a matter that can be disposed the without an evidentiary hearing. is that right? >> that's correct, your honor. the point that the chief made [indiscernible] it drives contributions toward thepac's and away from parties. themoney would float to candidate, to the party organization but now instead is going to the pac. what is your response to that? the constitutional

first amendment framework of these court decisions as a given. the court has determined that independence managers -- independent expenditures do not am a thatgulation direct contributions to candidates and parties can pose that risk -- >> that is the law, but the question says, what the question is directing at, given that that is the law, isn't the consequence of this particular provision to sap the vitality of political parties and to encourage -- what should i say -- drive-by pac's for each election? isn't that the consequence? one way ort know the other if that is so. the parties still raise and spend substantial amounts of money.

so i don't think that we know. but beyond that, what congress has made-- but connors a determination that there is a risk of quid pro quo corruption. and has regulated with respect to that risk. million.y it's $3.5 if you assume that somebody gives a maximum to every possible candidate and party he can contribute to throughout the united states, $2.5 million. put that in perspective. how much money is spent by political parties and tax in all elections throughout the country -- and eac's in all elections throughout the country in one election cycle? >> take the 2010 elections, nonpresidential year. spent approximately $1.5 billion. >> and what about pac's? >> for that i do not have the

specifics. newspapers that spend a lot of money in endorsing candidates and promoting their candidacy? in that money, too. that is money that is directed to political speech. when you add all that up, i don't think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money. >> i don't think that's the right ways to look at it, your honor. he a $1.5ty has billion together to run a congressional campaign, parties and candidates together, then of $3.5 the maximum million. less than $500 -- less than 500 people can find the whole match and is part of the problem that you will created situation that come if you take off the every limits in which there is a very the government

will be hot and run for and by those 300 people -- those 500 people and that is why we have these aggregate limits and why they need to remain in place. >> the consequences just to get back to my prior question. the consequence is that you're telling somebody who doesn't want to give $3.4 million but wants to contribute to more than nine house candidates up to the maximum, $5,000 per double cycle. you're telling him that he can't make that contribution however modest certainly within the limits the connors has said does not present a problem with corruption to attend candidate. i appreciate the argument you are making about the $3.5 million check and the need for the aggregate limits to address that. i understand that point. but what do you do with the flipside? you can pretend that it is pursued with no risk to quite apart from the one that is there. it seems like a direct restriction on much smaller

country should the congress said do not present a problem with rupture. >> i take that point. i think that you asked earlier about the analytical framework. i think the right analytical framework on the first amendment is to think of this on contract neutrality. entirely content neutral -- >> but it doesn't usually get you very far on the first amendment. we cannot have a rule that says that the poster the new york times can only endorse nine candidates. it is completely content neutral you don't know who the 10th is. a i think that that would be contents-based justification because you're not trying to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption by doing that and there is no other initial justification that i can think of for why you would impose such a rule. the point is, with respect to elected officials and the giving of money to elected officials, there is this content neutral

justification that doesn't exist with respect to any other entity out there in the world. yes, it is not free of first amendment cost and we acknowledge that. but that cost is mitigated and this is not prohibition. you can make it at the maximum -- >> is there any way to prevent the concern you have about the three point million dollar check without imposing the limits on the person who wants to support 10 candidates? >> i suppose you can try to calculate an aggregate limit that is higher than the one there is now. but the problem with that is the appellate court making the argument, that you cannot -- the only argument they have made in this case is that you cannot have aggregate limits because his country vision limits do all their work -- >> they are making the argument that the regulations that already exist about transfers from one entity to another prevent a lot of what you're --

what you are worried about. if they are not sufficient, they could be stirred. the aggregate limits are a very blunt way of trying to get at the problem that you are worried about. wrong? there's nothing more that can be done to prevent joint transfers from one member to another state parties to candidates? >> again, i apologize for repeating myself, but circumvention is not the only problem. the delivery -- the solicitation and receipt of these very large checks is a problem, a direct corruption problem and none of the alternatives address that problem. >> i don't understand that gave him in the time that the person sends the money to this hypothetical point committee, there is -- what if they just took the money and burned it? that would be a corruption problem? by will they are not going to burn it.

well, they are not going to burn it. that -- oblem is question it creates a sense of indebtedness on the part of the recipient and the leadership when it is delivered and that is the inherent risk of corruption in that situation. it is quite parallel to mcconnell. that is why we have aggregate limits it is these people are not hermetically sealed off from one another. in eachve an interest other's success. party leaders in particular have a sense of indebtedness. and lest restrictive alternatives don't do it that. i will try to deal -- i will try to adjust the circumvention. they have come up with a whole series of things that you would -- it is not one thing you have to do to take care of this problem. you had to say no transfers are segregated accounts are no giving money to pac's will have indicated they will give money to candidates once you have already given money. you have to do five or six things to deal with the risk of corruption.

that is a less restrictive means but it seems that you restrict that's a significant way more restrict main and will have a first amendment cost of its own. we mean we've -- we mean you say that we can't give money to and we want to? >> it is has focused -- it is fanciful to say that the sensitive gratitude that a senator connors and will feel because of the substantial contribution to the republican national committee or democratic national committee is any greater than the sense of gratitude that that senator or --gressman will feel to a pc to a pac which is spending an enormous amount of money in his city or in his state. it seems to me the latter is identify all -- is more identifiable.

i'm not here to debate the question whether the court's jurisprudence is correct with respect to the risk of corruption from independent expenditures. >> it is what it is peer quite as we accepted and the line is that there is an unacceptable risk when contributions are too high. may just say this in conclusion -- and likely so your answers to the questions put rigorously desperate previously is that that is the law. your answer is buckley has settled that issue. no more discussion necessary. >> we think the risk of corruption israel. and we think it is profound when you talk about the kind of admissions that is made when you take the cap of of aggregate contributions. if it is deeply disabling to

candidates and parties, congress can address that by changing the contribution limits. >> this court is having second thoughts about its rulings that expenditures are not corrupting, we can change that part of the law [laughter] >> and i recommend that you don't. as far as id, recall it from several years ago, talked about at length -- i don't like to use the word corruption, but integrity of the process. when it got to this part, to be a good it is to be accurate to me you circumvention. we don't have a lot of in the record about that.

>> it is really a close parallel. if you are really talking -- they don't think about it that way. so that is why i have been ofhing this idea, you see let's go into this come ok? you want to -- into this, ok? you want us to go into it, let's going to did. >> these aggregate limits were enacted in bigger, the same it pertains.hich it goes back to the same problem. it bears upon it and is ample evidence that will justify upholding these aggregate limits and i would strongly urge the court to do so. thank you. >> thank you. ms. murphy, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you mr. chief justice. first, having heard the solicitor general talk about circumvention, i think is because the circumvention argument just doesn't work. it is already addressed i all of

the prophylactic measures that baker contains. ande are much narrower tailored ways to get to the questions. what we have here is a corruption argument. as the questioning reveals, once you accepted the corruption theory that the government is putting forward, there really isn't a way to continue to draw the line between independent expenditures and the three point million dollar check to all of these different individuals. much will certainly be as gratitude to the individual who spends $3.36 million directly supporting one candidate. system that is forcing money out of the most transparent way possible to make contributions which is juridically to the candidates and the parties and the pac's. if there are no further questions, thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. "washingtonxt

journal," steve bell reviews the options of the treasury department for meeting its obligations if the united states default on the debt limit. julie appleby looks at the number of people signed up on the health care exchanges since they opened on october 1. then the differences between the state and federally run exchanges. josephrak president boardman talks about ridership and the impact of the shutdown on sequestration. washington journal at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. the house has a recess for the weekend, but the senate is live today. on our companion network c- span2, they are debating the government shutdown in the debt ceiling. you can also watch online at c- span.org and let us know what you think on twitter or go to our facebook age.

>> we want to know how the government shutdown is affecting you. >> make your short video message about the shutdown and upload it from your mobile device. see what others are talking about. >> we are at the new henry hoover house here on the campus of stanford university. it is significant is this was the primary residence of the hoovers. lou hoover designed it. she had a strong grasp of design and how she wanted the house to look, even though she was not an architect. we are lucky to have a lot of the original drawings and correspondence relating to the construction for how she wanted the house to look. her influence came from her travels in the southwest of the united states. blo architecture and also her travels from south africa.

of lou great legacy henry because she designed the house. she created it. it was inspired by her ideas and she had very close involvement in all aspect of the houses grecian. >> meet first lady lou hoover monday night. >> chris christie faces a challenge this year from democratic state senator barbara bohn no, the candidates first televised debate from william paterson university courtesy of w cbs-tv new york. the election >> live and uninterrupted, the new jersey gubernatorial debate, tv,sored by wcbs tv, kyw

william paterson university, the record, and as barry park press. here is your moderator, cbs2 anchor. live, where the candidates for the new jersey governor will square off in one of only two debates, and we bring you tonight's debate in cooperation with william paterson university, and cbs3, our sister station, the record, and asbury park press. this event is sanctioned by the new jersey law enforcement commission. tonight, we welcome state buono and chrisbu christie. the candidates will have 40 seconds for rebuttal.

, youin toss, senator buono have the first question. you are trailing and going against a republican governor who has been endorsed by 49 elect democrats. so muchyou having problems gaining traction in this campaign? >> do not let the glossy magazine covers and the late- night wisecracks will you. there is nothing that is funny about what is going on in new jersey, and there is no amount of youtube videos or late-night shows that will erase the fact that we have 400,000 people out of work. we have the highest unemployment and the lowest rate of job creation in the region. we have 20% higher taxes, but politics is not supposed to be about entertainment. this is about you, your life, and your children. >> senator, no denying those are the facts, but we only have so much time to answer questions, and we really would like no why

your campaign is having so much gaining traction. >> people are just beginning to focus on the race, and i have to tell you i have had a lot of opportunity. my dad was an immigrant from italy, and that opportunity was not republican or democrat, and the people who are really going to go to the polls and vote are not politicians that have their back room politics and their deals that they conduct behind closed doors. the people that are going to be coming to the polls to vote are those for hundred thousand that are out of work. >> senator, you're time is up, but i would like to know, a lot of this has to deal with name recognition, and would you like some help from washington, maybe president obama coming here to campaign with you? >> i am focused on new jersey, and there is only one person up here running for governor, and you are looking at her. main street and the barbershops,

and i tell you, when i meet them, my message resonates. they know that i get it, that i know what it is like to be on stamps. those are the people that are going to vote on november 5. >> governor christie? >> well, i am proud -- >> this is a separate question. [laughter] you champion anti-bullying campaigns, and you have words like stupid and have called one person and arrogant s.o.b. by using that type of language, are you sapping the dignity out of the governor's office? >> no, what people want is someone who is real and tells the truth as he sees it. i have told them the truth. i am told the truth sometimes that they are not comfortable

with, sometimes that they did not necessarily want to hear, but that is what leadership is about, it is about telling people the truth as you see it, and at the end of the day, from my perspective am a i think the people have a choice between prepackaged politicians and people who say it the way it is, i think they would pick the latter, and i think that is why we are having the success that we have. >> what don't you think that using that type of verbiage is disrespectful, and speaking from one parent to another, how is that a good image for our children? >> people have to know that when the act a certain way, they are going to be called out on it, and using direct language is the way my mother raised me. there can be differences on opinion on that, christine, and i respect that. i am not going to change, and i think they are comfortable with the leadership i have provided over the last four years in this state. >> our next question comes from the record. >> governor, you have nominated

an openly gay mayor, and you were outraged at the suicide of student, tyler clemente, and yet you still object to utilizing same-sex marriage, preferring to see it -- avoter wreck random voter referendum, and too many, these are mixed signals. why should somebody who wants to get married be put to a voter referendum? >> i understand that people have differences of opinion, and this is a very contentious one. the senator and i have s of opinions, and she believes that is right in the same way that i believe that the institution of marriage for 2000 years is between a man and a woman, and if we are going to change the definition, i do not think that should be decided i politicians or seven judges on

the supreme court. it should be decided by the people of new jersey, and if willdo want it changed, i support that part of the constitution with the same vigor i have done over the last eight years for every other part. respond to can you that? >> he said he equated marriage with guns and taxes. it is a human right. show a profile in courage and do the right thing for our sons and daughters, our brothers and our sisters. this is a human right, and it really should not be on the ballot. we should not have the majority of the people decide the minority rights. it is just wrong. >> governor christie, rebuttal. >> 35 of the 50 states have put this question on the ballot, so the idea that this should never be on the ballot is something against what over 30 other states have done. i trust the people of new jersey to make this judgment. politiciansst the

with political agendas. remember, in 2009, the democratic party that is advocating this now had entire androl of the statehouse did not pass marriage equality. let's put it in the hands of the people to decide. >> and this is from our cbs3 anchor. >> you believe the current minimum wage should be raised by one dollar. the owner, you believe it should be increased over a three-year period, and, senator, you support raising it by almost one dollar immediately, but there are some people, probably some students in our audience or maybe even older in new jersey who are having to go back to work after retirement that believe they cannot make a living on $8.25 per hour. what would you say to them, senator? >> i would like to say that my daughter, who is openly gay, is not a political agenda, and i have a hard time believing we are even discussing raising the

minimum wage from seven dollars 25 cents and that this governor vetoed it. in this day and age, we live in one of the highest cost-of- living states in the nation. this is a starvation wage, and it is true. it is unfortunate that the governor vetoed this legislation, but people are living on a minimum wage in new jersey. they are barely able to meet and -- make ends meet. there are many on food stamps, and this is just a reflection of him protecting millionaires and the wealthy and turning his back on the middle class, and this is a hallmark of his administration. >> governor, do you stand by that? >> i do, and this is one of the places where senator suono -- buono shows are misunderstanding about how to create jobs in this country. comeobs and money do not from that magic money tree. it comes from the work of the

small business owners, the people who own the small convenience stores, the bodegas, and the fact is i believe we should increase the minimum wage, and i put forward a bipartisan compromise to the legislature. i said let's raise it over three years. let's do it responsibly so businesses can plan that expense. what the not happen is national federation of independent businesses says, we could lose up to 30,000 jobs in new jersey by putting this one dollar, one time, and tying it to the inflation rate going forward. it is just in your responsible thing. i believe in raising the minimum wage, but let's not do it like this. to remind the audience that we need to refrain from giving up laws, because we want to make sure we give each of the candidate due time. let's go ahead and move along. john from the asbury park press. governor, property taxes.

people are considering leaving their homes in part because they cannot afford skyhigh property taxes. other people and senior citizens are struggling to afford living in the state because of the property taxes. can you give us two ideas on how the state can fund these services without relying so much on property taxes? >> well, john, let's see where we have been. before i became governor, property taxes went up 70%. he put forward common sense reforms in a bipartisan way that was adapted by the legislature, toh a cap, with a change interest arbitration and the encouragement of consolidation and shared services. to dohe two ideas we have more with in the next four years is to have them so they can consolidate and share more services across municipal and county lines and secondly to make sure we end this abuse of

sick pay throughout the system. millions and millions of dollars am in fact, $1 billion, in sick pay is pending right now. thosenot afford to pay things anymore. those two things will help to change the property tax situation, and remember, it has gone up less than two percent for the first time in years. the star-ledger david the headline, at long last, tax relief. >> senator? to raisemised not property taxes and cut property tax relief. he had the largest cut in property tax relief in state history. property taxes rose on average 20% and in other places more. toms river, 37%. aside, andflourishes then the governor turns around and because a piece of legislation that would have millionaires pay their fair share. you see, that is a major difference between this governor

and myself. i believe millionaires should pay their fair share. he does not. i would never balance my budget on the backs of the middle-class and the working poor, as this governor has done. >> elena christie, do you have a rebuttal? not noted the senator would balance the budget that way. i had to balance the budget deficit, andt a she has raised these 150 four times. believe me, everybody, if you give her the opportunity to have this position, taxes will increase again and again and again and again. we are going to restrict spending, and that is what we have done, and that is why you have had a seven percent annual increase go down to less than two percent. >> last rebuttal. senator? >> the senator came into office and he raised the cruelest tax of all, the property tax, and he did it by giving millionaires,

letting them off the hook by vetoing legislation, and then he turned around and raised taxes on the working poor. it was a double whammy. publiced taxes on transportation, increasing taxes on commuting while cutting services, and then he increased holes. it may not be called a tax, but it has the same effect. >> senator, your time is up. are you going to run for president? >> what an interesting question, christine. i was not expecting that at all. my mother told me to do the job i currently have the best that i can, in the future will take care of itself. 11 talking about me running for president in 2010, and they also talked about me running in 2012, and i did not. i was not looking for a new job. as we go forward, i am going to continue to do my job the best way i possibly can, and i am not

going to declare tonight for you, christine, or anyone else that i am or am not running for president. the people in new jersey do not expect me to. they expect me to do my job. but you areen, asking voters to commit four more years to you, but you cannot make that commitment here tonight, so why should they vote for you? >> they should vote for what they like, and they have seen the last of four years, and i them ther -- give promise that i will give them the best state that i can come in a state that i am extraordinarily proud to be the leader of and a state that can do even better, but i do not think anybody in america or the state of new jersey expects anyone three years away to tell them what they are going to do. life is to a long, christine. >> all right, so we are not making any headlines tonight. senator buono?

iswhat does not bother me that you are running for president but how you are running for president. this is just to cater to the nra. you are sacrificing the health of our women by vetoing items for planned parenthood, and that is because there is a national conservative base of the declared aparty that war on planned parenthood, and you are compromising and sacrificing the dignity of our brothers and sisters. >> senator, you are out of town -- time. governor? >> the only person who is upset about that is governor -- senator buono. i can walk and chew gum at the same time, christine. i can do this job and also deal with my future, and that is exactly what i can and will do. but ok, let's move onto another

topic. with anyone ono, the stage or near us right now, governors do not always complete their terms. two reside, and governor corzine was incapacitated after a car accident, and the state created the office of lieutenant governor. your choice for that position is a long time labor organizer, but she has never held public office. how is she able to run the state of new jersey if you are elected? >> i announced her, and the governor said she was wholly unqualified, and i question how he exceeds inks his record all of five him or a second term. she is eminently qualified. this is a woman who is highly educated, who brings a skill set that i think is sorely needed. contractsgotiated worth millions of dollars and brings a sense that she is able

to negotiate, to compromise to consensus. i do not know about you, governor, but i think that is a skill that we need. >> governor, would you like to respond? >> i agree that we need consensus building, and that is what we have been doing in a bipartisan way for the past 3.5 --an senator.n point9000sg100. 84+é,84capds,&nab5°ag),19423.158 -- more¢lram.

sq that good? >> the fact is we werse ensfo -- esnforcsing the act. if tshe osbama adminisstration ss -- snot cutsting

funding. gsovernonr, you are out of time. there is less savings and less choices, to reach out, to let them know there is a choice. tea party element, they have shut down government and have done this for one reason and that is they don't have the votes. >> we have enforced the law and

made health care more available, by increasing funding and by allowing the federal government to come in. l -- i am proud of our record. >> our next question. approved a bill children toe sick use marijuana. marijuana?legalizing reprehensive.

legalization, i i dot support it, but decriminalizing small amounts. >> we gave a grant to help build marijuana issue. not favor the legalization ofdecriminalization marijuana. i don't want my children or the new jersey

believing that. bloomberg.es from employment is up and personal up.me and tax revenue is it ranks near the bottom in all 3. revenue,t and take 44th. why are we at the bottom of the pack? >> remember where we were. 50th in terms of taxes. byhad a hole dug for us corzine andjohn

barbara buono. we have dug out of quite a hole we have worked hard and are proud of what we've done coming up.venue it is not over and it will get batter -- better. if we go back to their time, there were fee increases, and thingsll not make better. >> i do want to give you 30 seconds for rebuttal. trickle-christie's

down, romney-like plan has landed us where? the bottom of the barrel in job growth. 44th. points to his predecessors and even recently to a transit employee. look atme to man up and your records. who wantare people to reach across the aisle and those that don't. creditne of the tax

plans we had, she voted for. before apparently for it she was against it. we have heard that before, haven't we? unemployment rose. need to shareyou some of this responsibility?

pile i don't call this a of crap. i guess it is bye-bye bipartisanship. it time to-- is expand? downe reason revenues are is because of cannibalization economy.because of the

people don't have disposible incomes to go to atlantic city. they barely have money to put gas in their cars. we need soemthing not a trickle- down. >> people are gambling. they are gambling in pennsylvania and new york, so the question is, how do we keep some of that money in new jersey? >> if our economy is in the tank, there is going to be less people with disposible income to spend it on gambling.

>> when we took over in 2010, atlantic city was in bad shape in almost every way immaginable. senatetogether with the president. we would have a committment to make sure it got back on its feet. there are some things that are positive. we need to tranform it to a resort and conference destination, and we are making progress. there is the plan that we are working on together. i want to give it time to

succeed. gaming in >> i went to return to a topic that this and are brought up a moment ago. new jersey transit governor lost in the third of its fleet during superstring standing. they did not move their flee to higher ground. you told an editorial board recently that the responsibility for this rested with the middle manager. public expect more from you with your administration and just to say that the buck stops with the middle of manager -- the middle manager? >> if we wanted to escape the people for the ski -- for the sake of scapegoating, we could do that among but we will not be engaged in that. let's remember. 2012, three to

55,000 homes destroyed, 7 million jerseyans without power, every school in new jersey closed. we were confronting the biggest natural disaster crisis the state had ever seen. mistakes are made along the way. good things also. i am not going to scapegoat people who were not responsible. the fact is that we founders -- the people responsible and they were demoted. we're moving on. --someone wants me to do where not going to do that. that is not later said. -- that is not optimistic. >> would someone have been sold accountable at a higher level? >> the governor did scapegoat someone. he scapegoated a new jersey state transit them play. they were responsible for moving all those planes to a swamp.

newspaper reports that there were many things that those higher-ups were involved in the decision. just like when each of a full accounting of why those lanes were closed going from fort meade to the george washington bridge and the port authorities director said it was unexplained . he ended it and said that he thinks it was illegal. we need a full accounting of that as well. >> continuing with superstorm sandy, we are almost at the one- year anniversary. thousands of family are still misplaced. there've been criticism for lack of transparency. resettlement money has been dispersed. business owners worry that their livelihoods are hopelessly broken. how could the progress of our be considered a success? >> i lived through it. i saw what happened.

homes were damaged and destroyed. 7 million people were downtown. every school in new jersey was closed. i sat at the table trying to make sure that we get back to this. we still have people who are not under homes, but i don't think anybody in new jersey expected the storm to destroyed three to 55,000 homes. -- 3050 5000 homes. 000.55, we need to comply with the rules to make sure that money is not wasted. every dollar that is being spent of the federal money is on the website, accessible to everyone from the state comptroller's office. -- continuingng to make progress. i am proud of the people of new jersey to a pulled together to help us recover from this.

>> you're out of time. far be progressive considered a success? >> i wish there was more to celebrate. we are a year out, and we all lived through it. unfortunately, there are thousands of people who are still living in trailers and in trauma. it is important to rebuild the boardwalk, but there are many people who are having a hard time rebuilding their lives. state government has not acted fast enough. the governor met with one of his thoseentatives and one of -- in one of those meetings. if the government had met with one of those representatives in state those meetings, government is giving them no answer. one woman said she has two jobs, her day job and then coming home at night trying to sift her way through all of the paperwork she

has and has got no answers. we need a governor that is going to stand up to the insurance companies. these people have been victimized by their insurance companies. >> you're out of time, senator. i need to give you -- buono does not want to celebrate that. these are regulated by new jersey and have stood up and paid the claims. the national flood insurance plan, which is a part of the big government bloat in washington, d.c., that took over the flood insurance industry. this shows you why government should not be in charge of these things. >> there are those at william paterson university that will ask a question.

a senior majoring in biology. >> they have dramatically cut funding. a direct result of this is colleges have raised tuition. what will you do to make this more affordable for students and their families? >> that is a huge priority of mine. i put myself through college and law school. i was on my own since i was 19, and let me tell you, i would not be standing here running for governor as new jersey if i did not have education right here in new jersey that i was able to afford. but, you know what? there is something wrong with that picture. the jobs require more education,

more training, and they needed to make education a priority. for $173equests million. rutgers, 14% his first years in office. going to governor, i'm make higher education a priority because all of the kids, middle- class, working poor, they deserve the right to live up to their full potential also. >> this is one of those cases where instead of just talking about it, we had done something. there was capital money with others across new jersey. no new laboratories, no new classrooms, no seek expansion so more people could go here. i think that is wrong, and right now, we are in the midst of a 1.4 billion dollar investment. 170 six different projects being funded across the state that is

going to expand laboratory space, classroom space, so more can come to new jersey and afford all age in new jersey. this is a big inference in this race. you can talk about it all you like. the senator has been in the legislature for 20 years and never did anything about it. we came in and invested 1.4 $3 billion. i am proud of that, and i hope it will give more students in new jersey a chance to go to school in new jersey and pursue any discipline they want in a 21st-century way. >> thank you. we want to give each candidate a chance to ask each other a question. senator buono? rights guided the voting act, which guided the rights to vote of the poor and minorities, and you were asked about your opinion and failed to respond, and republican governors across the country are restricting the

rights of poor minority voters to exercise the right to vote. are you ready to give an opinion? was the supreme court wrong? this republican governor has not moved one inch to restrict people's right to vote. in fact, what we have done is make sure we have a full opportunity vote. in fact, as we speak on the people are voting in new jersey. people can now vote in new jersey as we speak. rather instead of giving opinions let my conduct show what my record is, and we are encouraging people to vote. we want people to vote. i want as many people's votes. believe me on november 5, i want as many people as possible to vote, and we are looking forward to those results. >> governor christie, your question for the senator? >> we have chronicled for the public your 154 votes to raise taxes and fees.

is there one of them that you regret? [laughter] anyovernor, you know that administration including yours has to find money to fund budgets. the difference is who pays and how they pay for it, and you came to office and raised the cruelest tax of all, the property tax on the middle class. you raise taxes on the working poor. you raised things for commuters. the fact is, governor, i would never balance my budget on the backs of the working poor and the middle class, as you did. your whole tenure has been to support and protect millionaires at the expense of the middle- class and the working poor. you are the last person to talk about taxes to anyone. good time to move on to our lightning round, our speed round, as we like to call it. senator, have you ever voted for a republican, and if so, who?

>> no. >> governor, have you ever voted for a democrat, and if so, who? >> i have not, but i am hopeful. >> senator, tell us one thing that you like about the governor . >> well, he is good on late- night tv. >> governor, one thing you like about the senator. >> she is obviously a good and caring mother and someone who cares deeply about public service in the state because she has dedicated a lot of her life to it, and while we may disagree, i would never denigrate our service, and we need more people to stand up. applause]d would either of you come to making your medical records public to prove that you are fit? >> i think both of us had trouble hearing that. >> we have a very feisty crowd

tonight. i do want to remind our audience that it does inhibit our candidates to hear the questions and takes away from their time to respond, so we can cheer afterwards. governor, senator, would you be comfortable making your medical records public to prove that you are fit to serve four more years? governor? >> sure. i am happy to make the medical isorts public, but the fact that people see whether you are fit, whether you can do the job. people who have watched me over the last of four years do the job under some really difficult circumstances and come to work every day and work as hard as i can, so if anybody is really -- erned, this,he did not denigrate i would sure hate to see when he

does. i have been a runner from my 20's. i am an avid runner. of effort into staying healthy, because i have six kids, and i certainly want to be there for them. 50/50 chance that i will get this question right. ?on jovi >> i am a springsteen fan. >> your favorite song? >> "thunder road." senator, bon jovi or bruce springsteen? >> i love them both, and i love beyonce. >> our next question. >> governor, you killed the tunnel, citing expected cost overrun.

it would have created a new trans-hudson tunnel. write her ship is expected to go up significantly. by 2030.imated 20% there are many proposals out there. your particular plan to handle that increase, and would you put your political capital behind one of these plants? >> not only what i put my capital behind the plans, we put actual capital high in plans. haventributed the money to engineering studies done of the number seven train. we are working with amtrak on the tunnel. so we absolutely believe in it. and here is the criteria where they could meet. it needs to allow people once they get to new york city to get to someplace else. the arc tunnel was going to the basement of macy's, eight floors below, $2 billion was going to be spent, and here is the worst

part. deals negotiated by the corzine administration made new jersey responsible for all of the cost overrides, not the federal government or the state of new york. in fact, they paid nothing towards the tunnel. i am all for a tunnel that goes to new york city but not one that is paid for solely on the backs of the people of new jersey. if new york wants to partner with us, we are ready to do it. do you have ano plan, and anything specific? >> is pulling out of the tunnel is just another example of him putting his national ambitions ahead of what is good for new jersey. they do not like big infrastructure plans, so you do not have to worry why we have the highest unemployment in the region. this would have provided 40,000 permanent jobs, not to mention 6000 construction jobs.

officeernment accounting came out after he gave his reasons and said there was a new cost estimate that shows new jersey is not going to pay for cost overruns. transportation secretary, ray lahood, came to new jersey at least twice to try to outlay the fears, but this governor was convinced that he needed to do this, whole the plug on the ark tunnel, to preserve his viability, and we all know it. question. >> governor, there have been serious questions about the right courtesy university which leds comments, to the firing of a basketball and the hiring of an athletic director who many believe in retrospect is not suited for the job. what is behind your unwavering support of a man who some say has mishandled several scandals under his watch? >> my support of him is because

he is the best man for the job, and he continues to be the best man for the job. he has shepherded this university through the largest public institution merger in the history of the united states. in one year, he brought forth from 55th to take it in research dollars in the country to 22nd. bob is a bright man, a brilliant professor, and a great leader for rutgers university. most of these problems that you referenced happened before he even got there, and when he got there, he dealt with it in a forthright way, so i support ogg because he is the best man for the job, and he is leading rutgers from good to great. >> senator? >> i could not disagree more. i think i lost confidence in him when he admitted he did not look at the video which showed his athletic director abusing his students. of rutgersd alumni

think theirand i reputation was dragged through the mind. there was headline after headline. governor, i would have them all in office, and he would not have gone on as long as it has, but he has shown a lack of leadership. he is the opposite of a brilliant leader. this is a man who has fallen down on the job time and time again, and, unfortunately, the reputation of rutgers has suffered, and hopefully that is just in the short term. >> governor? >> he had an athletic director who he is in charge of supervising the coach. the president relied upon the athletic directors judgment, and the athletic director made a judgment, and when that judgment was proved to be wrong, the athletic director resigned, and the coach was terminated. and i think that athletic

director is going to be an outstanding athletic director for rutgers. >> from the asbury park press. problem,r, the opium from oxycontin to others, is exploding. are you committed to doing about it? >> i used to be a public defender. i have been involved in many, many criminal cases, and, yes, you are right, the misuse of prescription drugs is an. phoenix -- endemic. i think we need to make sure that pharmacies him a we have to have oversight over pharmacies to make sure that people do not go to multiple pharmacies and try and get these drugs that are incredibly addictive. we need to have a whole plan. we really need to have a comprehensive plan to address

it, you guessed it is not going away. >> governor, you have one minute. >> this is another record where i am extremely proud. i was a prosecutor for seven years before i became governor, and what i know is that drug addiction is an illness. it is a disease, and we need to treat the disease, and that is endi put forward a plan to mandatory prison sentences for first-time offenders and instead make treatment mandatory, and we are phasing in that plan over five years pre-and we are two years into it, and every county of the state will have the opportunity or first-time nonviolent offenders to go to treatment, and no life is disposable, and what we need to do is to be on the treatment side of this to make sure that the people that have these problems can be given the tools to deal with them, to become better fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, mothers and sisters. that is the way you deal with the drug problem in the state.

make treatment more available, and that is what we have done in a bipartisan way, and we are proud of it. the next person to ask a question is a senior managing -- majoring in marketing and business. >> good evening. as of august 2013, the unemployment rate in the state of new jersey was 8.5% compared to the national average at 7.3%. what do you propose to do about jobs in the state, especially for graduating college students, such as myself? the unemployment come down 1.2% just in the last year. in 2012, new jersey had the greatest year of private-sector job growth since the year 2000, and 143,000 new private sector jobs have been created, but we have more work to do. we need to make the tax structure in the state more

affordable, and we need to make sure that we invest in higher education, as we are doing, with our 1.3 billion-dollar capital so the children when they go to college can be better trained and better prepared for the new jobs of the 21st entry, and this rutgers merger we did is already showing that we're going to get more research dollars in the state, which creates more jobs, as well. that is what we need to do. make taxes more affordable, more investment in higher education, and more partnerships with the private sector. andhe highest unemployment the worst job creation in the region. new jersey actually dropped in the ranking as a good place to do business. we are now one of the 10 worst states to do business in. poverty is at a 52 year high. what we need to do is take a different course, chart a different course, from this governors failed romney style trickle-down economics of giving

tax credits to corporations. it has not worked. we have landed in the bottom of the barrel, so we need to chart a different course. we need to grow the economy from the middle class out. what does that mean? that means we invest in our students and schools and small businesses, that we direct some smallse tax credits to businesses, where so many of them are small and minority owned, and we need to find innovative ways to fund our infrastructure, because we know that the strong infrastructure means a strong economy. >> the clock is ticking down. at next question is from alfred. >> limiting this to 30 seconds in response as we try to get through this. senator, if new jersey would allow parents to obtain vouchers to send their children to any public or private school, would this undermine our system of public education, or would it force the needed improvements in underperforming districts?

>> it would certainly undermine it. i am a proud graduate of public schools, and this governor, his support of vouchers reflects that he believes public schools are not worth fixing. he could not be more wrong. i believe that you build up the public schools by funding them according to the reform act, and you are also closing the achievement gap by investing in preschools. we know that is what works. we have to give it over. >> glorified babysitting. alfred, listen. it is very clear to me. we have 200 schools in new jersey, and there is only one in the state that has said that that is a problem. to createking competition, but most importantly, to give the parents of those children a choice to walk out of those factories and reach their full god-given potential. children should be put before

the interest of adults. believe it or not, it is time by closing statements, so going toss, governor christie, you go first. >> christine, john, the folks at william paterson, thank you for hosting tonight, and i am a proud, proud new jersey and. wereother and sister and i told to be yourself, because then tomorrow, you do not have to worry about who you pretended to be yesterday. for f or years, i have been myself to the people of new jersey. we inherited a $13 billion withoutand balanced it raising taxes on anyone, making sure we have the most education funding ever, and reaching across the aisle in a bipartisan way to bring solutions. that is why we have been able to get things done in trenton

compared to what is going on in washington, d.c., and what i promise you if you give me another of four years is that i will be myself and tell you the canh and work as hard as i because there is no greater honor or privilege i can ever, ever ask for in my life than to be the governor in the state that i was born and raised. >> my father came to this country when he was three years old. his parents, my grandparents did not speak any english, and they had little formal education, but they knew in the united states, your son would have opportunity, so today, the daughter of an italian immigrant which are is running for governor, and that is the american dream, to believe that no matter what your circumstances, your children can have a hope for a better tomorrow, and that hope for a better tomorrow is why i am running. the highest, we had unemployment, and today, we still do. it is time to put new jersey

first, to bring good jobs back to new jersey and put new jersey first, and i am going to be the kind of governor that will do that. i will put new jersey back on the road to prosperity, and the way i will do that is the way that has always worked, by building up a strong middle class. thank you very much. >> and we would like to thank the candidates for being here today, and i also want to thank my colleagues were being here with me alongside at this table, and i also want to ask william paterson university for hosting us this evening. a reminder that election day is tuesday, november 5, and your vote does count. for now, i am christine johnson. news at 11:00. have a good evening. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> on the next washington journal, the bipartisan policy center reviews the treasury department meeting its debt limit. and i look at the number of people signed up on the health care exchanges since they opened on october 1, and the differences between the state and federally run exchanges. in the amtrak ceo talked about ridership and the impact that the shutdown and sequestration had. rushing to in journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. part two of our conversation with josh bolton. >> start off by giving us what you saw with the press and the media and that world. how did you view them? >> usually with some hostility, which is, it is the natural state of affairs between the white house and the press corps,

because that is just the nature of what the press needs to do. you need to try to catch the white house with whatever is going on. >> more with the bush administration chief of staff tonight on q&a. the hoover henry house on the campus of stanford university. it is significant because this was the significant primary residence of the hoovers, and she was the one who designed it. she had such a strong grasp of design and how she wanted the house to look, even though she was not an architect. have a lot ofo the original drawings and documents related to the design and construction of how she wanted the house to look. >> her influence came from her travels in the southwest of the united states and also from her

travels in north africa when she traveled with herbert hoover. it is a great legacy of hers because she designed the house, and she wasired it, involved in all aspects of the houses creation. at 9:00y night, live p.m. eastern on c-span and c- span three and also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> next, a debate between candidates for new jersey's senate seat that was held by the late senator frank lautenberg. it includes democrat cory booker and the former mayor. the election is wednesday, october 16. the debate is about one hour. >> good evening. welcome to all of you. we are one week away from an election day like no other. the stakes are huge.

we are honored to be on the campus of rowan university tonight. we want to thank all of our partners who have made this possible. the candidates, they are here. democrat cory booker, mayor of newark, new jersey, and the republican, steve lonegan, former mayor of bogota. i will be asking questions tonight along with our panelists. a minuteidate will get to respond to these questions. we will give them a 15-second bell to let them know they are time.to run out of some of those questions have come from you, the viewers, and we really appreciate your help. your work is not quite done. we want to encourage you all to live tweet about tonight's debate using the #njsen. we will be busy up here. we will not be tweeting, gentlemen. encourage you to tweet about the debate. we had a coin toss, and