many teachers think that they are devoted to the future of america, to the future of our young people, and that the union is equally devoted to that, but that the union is absolutely wrong in some of its positions. and agency fees require, as i understand it -- correct me if i'm wrong -- agency fees require that employees and teachers who disagree with those positions must nevertheless subsidize the union on those very points. mr. dumont: and let me what i'd like to do is to separate out the important public policy issues, which we do not deny crosscut between the public's fear and the realm of citizens' speech and the isolated collective bargaining realm. they do crosscut, but that does not mean that the two spheres are the same. so in the collective bargaining context, what the employer needs

is to get one agreement with one group of employees, which we do by having one union. it's a democratic process. the employees get to pick that union. and because it's a democratic process, almost it's almost guaranteed that not everyone will agree with all the positions that are taken by the union that represents the majority of employees. from the employer's point of view, we need to get a contract, is to have one representative that can speak with one voice for all those disparate people. now, i understand that you'll be speaking on delicate issues. and the important point here is that outside the context of getting a contract, we do not try to suppress at all the wide or enriched variety of viewpoints that employees may have as citizens. and they can express them in the legislative realm. they can express them at the workplace, just not in the bargaining room. justice kennedy: do union do unions have public relations programs of or newspaper articles, media programs to talk about things like merit pay, protecting underperforming teachers and so forth?

do the unions actually make those arguments, and aren't those chargeable expenses? mr. dumont: the union is engaged in a variety of speech. some of it is chargeable and some of it is not. justice kennedy: some of the ones i've mentioned are chargeable? mr. dumont: i believe under current law they are. the current law because the -- and if there's a need to adjust the current law because the court feels that some of those things are more in the political or legislative sphere than they are in the collective bargaining sphere per se, that is a more of a lehnert question than an abood question. it does not -- justice scalia: well, if it -- mr. dumont: require it would not -- justice scalia: the problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, almost by definition. should the government pay higher wages or lesser wages? should it promote teachers on the basis of seniority or on the basis of -- all of those

questions are necessarily political questions. that's the major argument made by the other side. mr. dumont: and your honor, i don't disagree with that. but it does not change the fact that as a government, we have two things that we're doing -- one is trying to run a workplace, another is trying to run a government in which the debate must be wide open, and we would not dream of being able to impose -- justice roberts: what is you said you agree with that. you agree with that everything they're negotiating over is a public policy question? mr. dumont: no. i don't agree that -- justice roberts: why? mr. dumont: every issue is a public policy question, but i don't want to dispute the fact that many that there are deep public policy implications to many of the topics and to the general tenor of public employee bargaining. many of the public -- justice roberts: if you disagree with that, what is what is your best example of something that is negotiated over in a collective bargaining agreement with a public employer that does not present a public policy question? mr. dumont: mileage reimbursement rates or how you're going to have public safety. justice roberts: it's all money. that's money. that's how much money is going to have to be paid to the teachers.

if you give more mileage expenses, that costs more money. and the amount of money that's going to be allocated to public education as opposed to public housing, welfare benefits, that's always a public policy issue. mr. dumont: which is why i would say i would not try to draw the line by saying that some part of this speech is not a matter of public concern or whatever term you want to use. what i would say is that they when we're trying to run the public workplace, we need to have some flexibility because for as employers, we're trying to reach workable agreements to govern particular workplaces for particular periods of time. and that involves compromise, and it involves reaching some decisions on some of these issues. and many of them are controversial, but we need to have concrete decisions with one group of employees represented by one union to do that. justice alito: where does the where does the state of california think the line should be drawn? a provision of california law this section 3546(b) of the of the california government code says that agency fees may be

used for, quote, "the cost of lobbying activities designed to secure advantages in wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, in addition to those secured through meeting and negotiating with the employer." is that constitutional? mr. dumont: i don't know the answer to that question. i don't think it's the question presented here. it's not what the union's here it's not the position that they have taken in this litigation. and if there is a need to adjust that line, which there might be, that would be a question about where to draw the fundamental line that abood draws. but the question here is whether that line -- justice alito: well, one of the questions is whether the whether abood is workable. so i do think it's relevant to know whether you think that is on one side of the line or the other. mr. dumont: i think there are arguments about why that kind of thing could be considered germane to bargaining. but what is most important to the state here would not be preserving that line. i don't want to concede it, but that is not the fundamental point here. what is fundamental is that we

need to be able to run our workplaces, and that involves prescinding somewhat from the from the broad debates about public policy, which will continue to go on, but getting particular contracts. justice roberts: is there -- mr. dumont: and the particular speech restrictions, if i might, just in excuse me. i'm sorry. justice roberts: is there any is there any legal argument or factual basis on which the state of california disagrees with the position of the union? mr. dumont: i'm sorry. any aspect of -- justice roberts: well, we have i'm trying to sort out. we have, as you know, three respondents here, and i'm trying to sort out the different position. is there anything in any way in which your presentation disagrees with the union's presentation in its brief? mr. dumont: i don't think there's necessarily any fundamental disagreement. i think we would emphasize that our interests here are not are primarily interests of employees in coming to practical

accommodations here. there was a long history in california in the 1950's and 1960's of labor unrest. it led to a commission that issued a report that was very comprehensive and addressed this issue, among others. this issue of agency fees was part of the debate that went into the legislative decision in the early 1970's to adopt this system, and we think that was a legitimate legislative decision. justice scalia: general dumont, you are arguing that -- and i sympathize with the need of the state to have an efficient system for dealing with its employees, and i can agree that dealing with just one union makes everybody's life easier. why do you think that the union would not survive without these fees charged to nonmembers of the union? federal employee unions do not charge agency fees to nonmembers, and they seem to survive -- indeed, they prosper.

why is california different? mr. dumont: the federal situation is different. they have very different scope of bargaining. i wouldn't say that it's been established that they prosper. they have about a 30% membership rate. and from -- justice ginsburg: as opposed to what is the membership rate in the california teachers unions? how many are members of the union? mr. dumont: actual membership? i'm afraid -- i don't know that. mr. frederick may know that. justice ginsburg: because you you've pointed out the membership is low in the federal sector. but there is no bargaining about pay, right? mr. dumont: there is no bargaining about pay, that's correct. justice sotomayor: general, there was no fact-finding below on this assumption, factual assumption of whether -- mr. dumont: there has been no fact-finding at all. justice sotomayor: no factual development. so there's a presumption in the question posed which is that it can survive, but we don't know that factually. mr. dumont: we don't know that factually. the state would prefer not to take that risk, and i don't

think the constitution requires us -- justice scalia: you're the one making the argument. it isn't it isn't the job of the opponents to show that it you know -- that it will survive. you're the one that's saying we need to do this because otherwise it won't survive. it seems to me the burden on is on you to suggest why that's so. mr. dumont: with respect, your honor, i don't think -- justice kennedy: you have a compelling interest. mr. dumont: with respect, your honor, i don't believe that what we need to show is that the union would not survive without this. from our point of view, the question is are we using a technique that the private sector uses widely that is reasonable from the point of view of the employer and that doesn't impose an undue burden. and let just me say for just a moment about the burden that's involved here, because i don't want to minimize it, but let's remember that there is no personal attribution of this speech here to any individual employee. there is no restriction any individual employee's speech as a citizen, either in the workplace or out of the workplace. all this speech is workplace related, and if it's not, then that's a matter of -- justice kennedy: it's odd to say that if x is required to pay $500 for someone to espouse a belief that he doesn't share,

that he is now free to go out and argue against it. that means he has to spend another $500 so that it balances out? that makes no sense. mr. dumont: see, what i would say here is to me, your honor, this case is very much like southworth, because what we have here is something where it is important to the state to have a system in which we are not the speaker, because that would defeat the purpose of the system. the same way the point in southworth was to have students speak -- justice kennedy: the whole idea of southworth was a public forum. are you saying that the whole purpose of agency fees is to have an open public forum? mr. dumont: no. i'm saying it's to have a bargaining forum, but that it is legitimate when we have compelled association to have that bargaining forum. it is also legitimate to have user fees that fund it. justice roberts: thank you, general. mr. frederick. mr. frederick: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, abood correctly held that states may reasonably insist that

nonmembers pay their share of costs for the services provided by a union to the government and to all employees as their exclusive representative. overruling abood now would substantially disrupt established first amendment doctrine and labor management systems in nearly half the country. let me talk about what a collective bargaining is, and how the agreement is struck, and how it evolves over time. because it's not simply one contract where there might be a severability provision, but it is really system of agreements that are established over time, and a body of relationships that build up. and if you look at the joint appendix, there are several examples of collective bargaining agreements. they are very long, detailed agreements that include a wide range of services that are negotiated between the union and the government. and some of these are monetary. many of these are hot-button issues, to be sure, justice

kennedy, but many of them are also mundane issues about health and welfare benefits, what times teachers need to show up, how long their lunch break can be without having to perform a duty, what the policies are for transferring teachers between and among school districts, and these are all basic services that require research, legal representation, conferring and consulting, communicating with members, trying to ascertain what the positions of all members of the workforce are before the union presents a policy -- justice kennedy: well, i suppose, if that's so convincing, the union can convince teachers to join the union. mr. frederick: well -- and, in fact, in california, the overwhelming majority of the teachers are in the union, and it's only a small percentage that have opted not to. but i would go further, justice kennedy, in saying that what we are talking about here are a range of services that they're providing. we're talking about a service fee for the state law that provides for the exclusive representative to be the union

when that is voted for by a majority of the workers. and here, this court's cases have distinguished between citizens' speech, where the very teacher who might disagree with the union's position is free to go and speak publicly about that position, and employment speech, where this court's cases have been extraordinarily deferential to the government in upholding restrictions on what speech employees may make. justice kennedy: but philosophically, if you use pickering in this case, you're committing the error of composition. you're comparing a whole group of persons who have their views coerced or compelled against one person, that pickering is just inapplicable on that on that ground. mr. frederick: well, justice kennedy, i think that it is fair to suppose that the government, in deciding whether it's going to establish a relationship with its workers and were to get input, is necessarily going to be dealt with a cacophony of views unless it comes up with a reasonable system of management to get those views collected and have them represented by an exclusive representative. and that is the basic tradeoff

that abood recognized. and i would note that because different states have chosen, based on their history, their culture, their experiences with the labor management system in the private sector, to come up with different results. and here, i would say that wisconsin and michigan, which recently adopted alterations to their public management sector, established this point. because on the one hand, the legislature in wisconsin decided we're going to do away with public sector agency fees for school teachers and for government workers, but we're going to keep it for public safety officers, police officers, firefighters, because we determined there is a legislative interest in having agency fees. why? the firefighters brief in this case explains that many states don't have safety regulations for firefighters. and so a lot of these regulations end up coming through the collective bargaining process, where

firefighters work out negotiated rules to establish what is a safe way to fight a fire. justice roberts: and all of that would still survive if the petitioners prevail, unless your basic argument that if you do away with agency's -- agency fees, the unions are going to collapse and not be in a position to negotiate those safety requirements. mr. frederick: chief justice, the necessity standard has never been the standard when the government is operating as employer or proprietor. it has always been a case that you would judge the agency the government's decision the basis of what is appropriate or reasonable. and if you look at it from that standard, what the firefighters are saying here is that it's actually essential to have agency fees, because they are using those fees to benefit all of the workers in the in the unit through getting additional equipment that the county may not be able to afford, additional training so what when they're called upon to fight a fire -- justice roberts: i'm sorry. they're getting additional equipment that the county may not be able to afford? mr. frederick: that's right. the union members and the nonmembers of the union in the in the unit are putting their money together through the

agency fee process so that the union is supplying -- justice breyer: there's something other than that. that would be the same as justice scalia's question which raised an issue, and we heard it before. your last colleague mentioned this. california needs this rule that it has, because it wants, on the other side of the bargaining table, a coherent group of people to negotiate for the workers on wages, hours, working conditions, etc. now, the chief justice said, i can understand that argument if the alternative is the union is destroyed, because then there's nobody. and you say that argument's a good argument because they're going to buy fire trucks and some other things. is there anything else that backs up that argument? mr. frederick: sure. justice breyer: i think it's important, and i'd like you to explain it. mr. frederick: yes. the flip side is that the state briefs and the city briefs that have been submitted in this court note what happened when

the agency fee process didn't occur. in new york city, for example, there were strikes that were occurring all of the time until an agency fee system was put into place, and that enabled the city to better deliver transit services, school services, and the like. so you have both the positive story by -- justice scalia: i don't understand that. i just absolutely don't understand it. why would agency fees enable the city to do things that it couldn't do before? mr. frederick: because it enables all of the workers to know they are making a shared sacrifice for the purpose of working together to establish a coherent position with their employer. that's -- justice scalia: you say that, but it doesn't mean anything to me. mr. frederick: i understand -- justice scalia: you have a union bargaining, and the city says no. and you're saying that if there are enforced fees to the union, the city will say yes? mr. frederick: no. what i'm -- justice scalia: i see no connection whatever between -- mr. frederick: well -- justice scalia: what the city is willing to give in collective bargaining and whether you have agency fees. mr. frederick: justice scalia, all i can report on in the

absence of a factual record because this was basically brought as a facial challenge is what is in the amicus briefs. in cities, states, school districts, hospitals that are managementside have supported agency fees because they find it to be a more workable system by having -- justice roberts: well, i -- mr. frederick: employees buy into the policies that are being established -- justice roberts: i -- mr. frederick: through the collective bargaining process. justice roberts: it sounds to me like your argument cuts exactly the opposite way. the problem that's before us is whether or not individuals can be compelled to support political views that they disagree with. and you're saying, well, the reason they should be able to, because if they do, then those political views are going to prevail. they are opposed to particular funding. that's why they don't want to join the that's why they don't want to join the union, because the union is pushing that. but you say you should force them because then the union will prevail, contrary to the objecting employee's views. mr. frederick: n what i'm saying, mr. chief justice, is the states can make rational and reasonable

judgments that for their workability of a system, they can have an agency fee process. abood recognized the very federalism interests that are at stake here, where different states have different experiences, and this an opportunity for the states to draw upon those distinctive experiences in coming up with a system that's fair for everyone. justice ginsburg: mr. frederick, you didn't ask for this judgment. it was thrust on you, this judgment on the pleadings. you did say you wanted to make a record in the district court. if you had had that opportunity to develop a record, what would you have put in it? mr. frederick: well, the first thing i would have put in, it would have been a response to justice kennedy's question, which is that ms. friedrichs has said publicly she's happy with the positions the union is taking on pay. it would be anomalous to suppose that we're going to decide a case of this kind of constitutional import with a lead plaintiff who has said publicly she agrees with the union's positions on pay. justice roberts: can you can you

do you think you can find one employee who doesn't? mr. frederick: no. i think that that's the point, mr. -- justice roberts: you don't think. mr. frederick: no. i think that there are undoubtedly -- there are undoubtedly issues in a hundred page collective bargaining agreement in which reasonable people can say, we don't like where the bargain got struck. but the point here is government workability and assessing the reasonableness of the government's position. justice breyer: do you think you can -- i mean, obviously one thing that's come up is i know that you're right on this the thaler law was a mess. it was strike after strike. but what you would like to show is that approach, compared to the assessment of wage, hour, and working condition related fees, that the latter makes an improvement in the coherence of the union's position, and therefore there will be of your strikes. that's something like that is what you're arguing, and i would guess that people would have written articles about that now,

and if that's so. mr. frederick: well, justice breyer, i guess the question is, are you going to decide a case of this constitutional significance on the basis of a hypothesis based on -- justice breyer: all right. my argument to you was, do you want to put information in the record on that point? mr. frederick: i think that is a one of many points that a record would be helpful, but let me just say that we're talking here -- justice sotomayor: mr. fredericks, this the -- justice kennedy: i suppose -- justice sotomayor: this the -- justice kennedy: mr. fredericks, we i suppose, mr. fredericks, we could assume that a state is always benefitted and is more efficient if it can suppress speech. mr. frederick: and your decision in garcetti, justice kennedy, allowed for the suppression of the speech by the prosecutor who objected -- justice kennedy: that was in the workplace. it doesn't apply to merit pay. it didn't apply to the protection of underperforming teachers. it didn't it didn't apply to classroom size. it didn't apply to educational objectives. mr. frederick: those are all classic workplace situations. justice sotomayor: can you can you -- mr. frederick: you are talking

about workplace -- justice roberts: justice -- mr. frederick: speech -- justice roberts: justice sotomayor. justice sotomayor: can we go back to this sue of burden? there are a lot of assumptions underlying your adversary's position, whole set of position, whole set of questions -- can the union survive? hold on. i have about ten of them. is it necessary? and your adversary says you or one of my colleagues has said you bear the burden. but this an overturning of a decision on stare decisis, isn't it? mr. frederick: that's correct. and the point -- justice sotomayor: and what burden do you have, or is it your adversary who has to show no reliance interests that the foundation is wrong, etc.? mr. frederick: we submit that, given the four decade history, they have the burden to demonstrate that the way the system has worked would be unworkable if it were to be if it were to be sustained. and, justice kennedy, back to your point. i appreciate that a prosecutor's memo might be viewed in your

eyes as workplace speech whereas the teachers' position about what size the classroom might be may not seem the same way as workplace speech. but from of government's perspective, i think you have to assess that on the basis of the reasonableness of the system that the government -- justice alito: well, no, mr. frederick -- justice kennedy: you're again talking about a whole class of persons whose speech has been silenced, not just one person. mr. frederick: well -- justice kennedy: big difference. mr. frederick: their speech isn't silenced. they are paying a service fee so that a -- the exclusive representative can negotiate their health and welfare benefits, their mileage reimbursement, a whole set of things that voluntary teacher transfer policy, the questions about when teachers have to show up, how long their duty breaks dutyfree breaks are during the course of the day. these are all relatively mundane points. i think you would agree with me. and there's nothing in the agency fee process that suppresses the ability of teachers to speak out publicly, and even within the process because the law itself allows

for merit pay to be a subject of bargaining if a minority of the teachers can convince the majority that this a position that the teachers ought to take. justice roberts: mr. frederick, your -- i think you would at least agree we're dealing with some sensitive and important constitutional issues. what is the burden on the union that counter weighs against those of simply requiring optin as opposed to optout? at least then you ensure that people are making a conscious decision about supporting the union before they're compelled to do that. mr. frederick: on the second question presented, we think that the decision ought to be affirmed because abood correctly recognized that here, where there was basically no burden on the person who wanted to opt out, that was in itself a core question. justice roberts: and what you're saying, it's easy for the person to check a box saying i opt out. it's also easy to check a box saying opt in. mr. frederick: it's administratively -- actually, in a system where the overwhelming

majority -- and we're talking about more than 90% of the people are paying the fees, even those that are nonchargeable fees under the lehnert line to support political activities, it's administratively much easier to count a smaller number. and the question is whether the suppression of their constitutional rights is such as to rise to the level of compulsion. here we would submit that where there's a one page checkbox, they can send it in, they are able and every petitioner on the other side has successfully opted out of paying those that the burden is on them to show that the government has made an unreasonable choice as to the kind of administrative scheme that's been established. justice alito: well, opt-in is -- opt-out is not always as easy as you as you say. in one of our prior cases, i think that anybody who wanted to opt out had to send a certified letter within a certain period of time. now, suppose somebody says i

don't want to pay this year. i don't want to i never want to pay. what is the justification for saying that person has to opt out every single year? mr. frederick: well, let me just say that the perpetual opt out is not an issue in this case. and it had it been raised, it very well might be an acceptable way to do, to say i want to opt out until further notice. that's not been presented or argued here. if it were to be argued, there are reasons why that might be appropriate. but here, having an annual process follows this court's hudson decision where the union is required on an annual basis to provide notice of the activities that are chargeable and not chargeable. so from the perspective of getting notice to the potential objecting member, it allows more flexibility. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. frederick: thank you. justice roberts: general verrilli. general verrilli: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, let me begin by summarizing the three fundamental reasons why abood

should be reaffirmed. first, in the four decades that abood has been the law, this court's jurisprudence in the area of employment relations, first amendment jurisprudence in the area of employment relations, has converged with abood in a way that fortifies its foundations and does not erode them, because what those cases have recognized is when the government is acting as employer managing the workforce, it should receive reasonableness review in order to give it the latitude comparable to that of a private employer to manage its workforce, and not exacting scrutiny that applies when government is a sovereign regulating the citizens. second, in those four decades, more than 20 states have enacted and enforced laws that allow the public employers in those states to have the same latitude that congress gave private employers to decide, based on workplace needs and local conditions, whether agency fee requirements will help them achieve the purposes for which they for which they adopt collective

bargaining. and the reliance goes far deeper than those 20 state laws and the thousands of contracts affecting millions of people that are based on those laws. in those states, the agency fee requirement has worked its way, woven its way into the fabric of the relation between workers and management in the public sphere. in those states, the unions have taken on such obligations as training and the like, funded by agency fees that make the workplace more effective for management, as well as more effective for employees. and if you were to take those away, you're going to disrupt those long-term relationships that have developed over time, and the expectations that have developed over time, and you're going to replace them with a different kind of a situation in which the union is going to have a different set of incentives, trying to trying to ensure that the maximum number of people are willing to pay union fees. and the way that the unions are likely to try to do that is

through trying to convince employees that you that they need the union because otherwise management is going to do them harm. and i do think that that's a significant problem here for public employer perspective now, in a time of budgetary constraints, when difficult decisions have to be made and cuts have to be made. it's of great benefit to the employer, to the government as employer, to have the union participate in those judgments so that they are perceived as fair as the by the workforce, and so that the union then, in effect, vouches for management with the workforce and prevents disruption. so i do think the reliance interests go very deep here. and then the third point i would make is that we're talking about overruling a precedent of 40 years' standing. there need to be needs to be a showing of changed circumstances, it seems to me. now, with respect to the question of the role that agency fee the role that agency fees -- play in the process, i think it is quite important, and this goes to a point you raised,

justice scalia. abood never said, and no case since abood has ever said, that agency fees are necessary to union survival. abood couldn't have said that, because when abood ruled as it did, tafthartley had been on the books for decades. and so with respect to the private sector, what congress had said with respect to the private sector is that employers get to choose. employees get to decide whether the agency fee will help them achieve their workplace goals. and what the court said in abood was that public employers ought to have the same kind of choice to respond to workplace needs and local conditions that prior -- justice roberts: the the fact that abood has been around for 40 years, does it affect your point at all that the main justification for abood that's being advanced today is one that abood did not adopt? general verrilli: i -- justice roberts: pickering justification, that's what i hear most prominently in the presentations, and yet abood did not even cite pickering. general verrilli: i respectfully

disagree with that as a technical matter. i think abood did cite pickering. and if one looks at the briefs in abood, the parties on both sides were arguing pickering. but beyond that, i think -- justice roberts: in terms of that, but in terms of the substantive analysis, it can't really seriously be called a pickering case. general verrilli: no. but i think it shares what i said at the outset, mr. chief justice, is i think the key point: that this court's first amendment law in the public employment context has, over time, converged with abood, in that the cases generally have recognized that when government is acting as employer, it has interests that, if government were acting as sovereign regulating the citizenry, wouldn't suffice to justify conditions on speech. justice alito: well, pickering is -- pickering is the heart of your argument, so i do want to ask you a couple of questions about it. is it different from the situation here in several respects? one was brought out. pickering -- the pickering cases involve the termination or the discipline of a public employee after a single employee after the employee has made a statement that to which the

employer objects. this a prospective rule that applies to a huge category of employees. the second is whether restrictions on what employees can say are the same as compelling an employee to make a statement or subsidizing a statement. general verrilli: let me take -- justice alito: so as to the as to the latter -- general verrilli: yeah. justice alito: there are circumstances, are there not, in which the department of justice could terminate or take an adverse employment action against a doj employee for something that employee says as a citizen on a question of public concern. that could be done, could it not? general verrilli: yes. justice alito: are there any circumstances in which the department of justice could compel an employee to make a statement -- general verrilli: i can't --

justice alito: as a -- general verrilli: i can't think of one, specifically. justice alito: as a as a private citizen? general verrilli: i can't think of one, but that goes right to the difference, right to the difference between government acting as employer, managing the workplace, and government acting as sovereign, regulating the citizenry. in the latter situation, what this court's cases would say is that is not government acting to manage the workplace; that is government leveraging its its control over the employee, acting as sovereign, affecting that person in his role as citizen, and that would get exacting scrutiny. and that so that i think that's the key. we're not arguing that abood applies of its own terms. we're arguing that there's an insight that underlays abood, and it underlays garcetti, and frankly, it underlays the political affiliation cases as well. because if you look at those, what those cases all say, contrary to what my friends say, is that when government can show the political affiliation is a reasonable requirement for the effective performance of the job in question, that affiliation requirement can be upheld. that, again, is not exacting scrutiny; it's reasonableness. every case lines up along that axis. and so and i think that's the key point about pickering.

and if i could, i just want to address a couple other points. justice alito: well, i when a union is bargaining about a matter of public concern, you're saying that that's that is not the same as commenting on a matter of public concern? general verrilli: no. what i'm saying is that it occurs in the context of the collective bargaining relationship, which is a which is it has to be subject to a different set of constitutional standards. it has to be; because, think about it. with respect to collective bargaining, there's a specialized channel of communication that the government sets up. the government controls who can speak, when the discussion's going to occur, and what topics can be discussed. justice scalia: all of that is true. nobody denies that. but the problem is that it is not the same as a private employer, that what is bargained for is, in all cases, a matter of public interest. and that changes the that changes the situation in a way

that may require a change of the rule. it's one thing to provide it for private employers. it's another thing to provide it for the government, where every matter bargained for is a matter of public interest. general verrilli: but i guess what i would say about that, justice scalia, what i read this court's cases as saying in the employee speech context, in the employee petitioning context, in the political affiliation context, is that you yes, it's not wholly free of first amendment scrutiny. but recognizing the government's interests as employer and prerogatives as employer, you apply reasonableness review and not the exacting scrutiny that applies when government is regulating as a sovereign regulator. justice breyer: i guess isn't it is you may know the case in which government as employer is most likely to want to control what the employee says and where he has the right to do that is likely to be a case that

involves the institution's job, i.e., the public interest. general verrilli: yes. certainly, certainly. that's why that's why i think there was no doubt in garcetti that the speech was not a matter of public concern. and i could have said the same thing in borough of duryea and any number of these courts' other cases. that's not the that's not the distinction the court has drawn. the distinction the court has drawn is between government acting as employer managing the workforce, and the government as sovereign regulating the citizenry. and i respectfully submit that distinction applies with equal force here, and especially given the stare decisis considerations that ought to govern this court's decision in this context that is more than sufficient to uphold, to reaffirm abood. because as i said, what this court's cases have recognized through all the public employer context is the same principle for which abood stands. justice sotomayor: general, you seem and everybody seems to equate government subsidy with government speech.

do you think our cases give government subsidy the same analysis as they give compelled speech or compelled silence? general verrilli: may i answer, mr. chief justice? justice roberts: sure. general verrilli: what i would say about that, justice sotomayor, is that in this context, the subsidy goes to the process of contract formation and contract administration within that collective bargaining context that i described earlier, that of necessity, a different first amendment standard has to apply to. thank you. justice roberts: thank you, general. three minutes, mr. carvin. mr. carvin: thank you. as to the absence of a factual record here, it's important to point out that we gave them an amended answer where they could make any allegation they wanted. and at page four of their so-called opposition, it said, to quote, "the unions do not oppose the entry of a judgment on the pleadings." why is that? because they certainly it's their burden to argue, for example, that agency fees will

lead to the demise of the union. but they didn't make any such allegation in their answer. they didn't make any such allegation in response to justice ginsburg's question, and they've got all the facts and terms of the union's fiscal wellbeing. that's because they can't make such an allegation in the real world. how do we know that? 25 states prohibit agency fees. not one union. read the amici. see if you can see one example of the union capitulating because of that. the federal government doesn't allow agency fees. and only a third of the members are union members, and yet, that union survives. whereas here, we have 90% union membership, and mr. frederick said 90% of the nonmembers continue to contribute. so the notion that anything could happen adversely here simply doesn't square with things. the notion that abood put forth that there's some federal policy in favor of agency fees is completely contrary to the fact. 29 u.s.c. 164(b) allows excuse me prohibits agency fees if the

state prohibits. so it allows states to prohibit agency fees. conversely, it preempts states that seek to require agency fees. so the federal policy, not only with respect to their own workforce, but to the respect of the private workforce, is contrary to agency fees. in response to justice kennedy's question, yes. there's a stark difference between single personnel decisions and group decisions. nteu, which is a pickering case, makes that quite clear. even in the pickering context when there was a general rule with respect to outside honorarium, the court made it clear that the burden of justification is much higher. they haven't come close to this burden of justification, because they can't possibly show that agency fees will lead to the end of the union. and contrary to my brethren, that's the only thing that matters. we're talking about the government's interest as an employer. all they care about, according to abood, is having one union instead of two so they only have to speak to one person. they don't care about how robust

or effective this union is. indeed, if anything, they don't want them to be effective, because nobody wants a strong bargaining partner that's going to drive up public expenditures and have a -- justice sotomayor: so what do you do with the law enforcement people who submitted their brief who said the unions actually do training. they provide equipment the county can't afford with fees. so they're what the general has been saying is, we have to leave it to each state to decide, because with this kind of agency fee, there are things that unions can do that we would choose not to do. mr. carvin: i am -- justice sotomayor: the unions in california do teacher training. mr. carvin: exactly, and they do fire training. they do safety training. can you think of something that's more a matter of public concern, that's more of an ideological point, that's more important? and yet they dismiss these as somehow prosaic issues. they're basic to our democracy, and that's why we have an

absolute right not to subsidize it. no one's arguing that these -- justice sotomayor: why? why? if you're receiving the benefits of it, why? it's your benefit. you may disagree with that judgment -- mr. carvin: right. justice sotomayor: but and you and you can speak about it -- mr. carvin: because there's -- justice sotomayor: but why is it hurting your first amendment right if you can speak? mr. carvin: there's a great ongoing debate about teacher training class size in education reform today. the unions have their right to take their side of that view. what they don't have a view is a right to demand that the other side subsidize their views on these essential questions of basic public importance. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> and tonight on c-span, this of cream court cases that shaped our history come to life with landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions. our 12 part series explores real life stories and dramas behind

some of the most significant decisions in history. >> the constitution is a political document and sets up the political structures, but it is also a law, and if it is a law, we have the courts to tell us what it means. >> it is the ultimate anti-presidential case. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? the supreme court said it should make the decisions of those debates. at the casea look that denied black citizenships under the constitution and validate the missouri compromise , scott v samford. that is tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. trump makes his first campaign stop in wisconsin today ahead of the states primary a week from today. he is holding a town hall

meeting in janesville, although the speaker has not endorsed a candidate. we will take you to the rally in 20 minutes. the wisconsin primary is a winner take all with 42 delegates at stake. all of the remaining candidates stand to benefit from a win as they try to reach the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination. is lessw, donald trump than half way to that goal with 736 delegates. johnruz 463 delegates, kasich 143 delegates. you can follow that delegate count as it changes on c-span.org. wisconsin governor and former presidential candidate scott walker announced that he is supporting ted cruz for texasent, calling the senator a principled constitutional conservative. governor walker ended his campaign in september. he is one of former several

candidates to endorse ted cruz. he is already received the support of george bush, carly fiorina, and rick perry. this is 15 minutes. governor scott walker. how are you? i appreciate you coming on the show and you want to make the announcement about your decision of who you will endorse. gov. walker: after a lot of thought, a lot of time, a lot of prayer, i decided after all these years of the about obama-clinton failures, i have chosen ted cruz to be the best president for three reasons. i fundamentally believe he is a constitutional conservative. i know as a governor and talking to other governors that we need

a leader in washington who understands that our founders intended for the power to really be in the states, and most importantly in the hands of the people, not concentrated in washington. ted cruz has shown he is willing to act on that. secondly, we have shown, as you well know, that we know how to take on the big special interests that puts the power back in the hand of the hard-working taxpayers. that something that ted cruz has not only talked about in this campaign, he has shown that he is not afraid to take on the big government special interests, even sometimes when they are aligned with our own party. onis not afraid to take those interest, and that's what we need is president. and third, a practical point, i fundamentally believe that if you look at the facts and numbers that ted cruz is the

best position by far too both win the nomination of the goublican party and to then on and defeat hillary clinton in the fall of this year, and that is the key. we want people who are principled, common sense conservatives, people who do what they say and stick to their guns, but also people who can win the nomination and go on to defeat hillary clinton in the fall, and for that reason i am proud to endorse ted cruz. i want to add one other quick thing. i wanted to make sure that i was againstng someone, not something or someone, but rather being for something, just as i said many times when i campaign for governor, i want to be for something. ater a lot of time looking speeches, looking at records, looking at what the candidates say and have done in the past, it was an easy call for me to support ted cruz. i am struck by your endorsement in the sense of that

i expected you were going to make an endorsement in order to block donald trump from winning in wisconsin, but you sound like you are all in on ted cruz. gov. walker: absolutely. i set it on the campaign trail for governor. i said it when i threw my hat in there for a while for president. americans want to know what your four, not what you are against. i spent a lot of time, prayer, and thought about this, and fundamentally looked at whether i wanted to endorse or not. secondly, whether or not if i did, who that would be. for me, looking at all these facts -- i have to tell you and away that i don't think a lot of americans have seen, i did no ted cruz well before the campaign this past year. i got to see him and know him and a lot of events. we would bump into each other a campaign stops across the

think the media doesn't give him all the benefit of what i found personally interacting with him, and that is he is a decent man, loves his family, loves his wife, adores his children. he loves his country. he and i are both preachers kids, so we can appreciate and feel strongly about the impact that his father had on him. for the two of us having grown oth in our 40's, and just the sense i get, and others like paul ryan. we all came of age -- we came of age under president ronald reagan, and i see someone who is willing to uphold the same principles and that's why i am proud to endorse him. >> you anticipate campaigning with senator cruz? gov. walker: absolutely.

thatached out yesterday one of the folks who had worked with us in the past will be campaigning with him for a number of stops. i will be out all through the weekend up to early next week. right up until tuesday's i am all in.to me, this is not a default. notuld not do this if i did feel strongly. i feel strongly for the reasons i laid out. if you look at the facts, he has a tax plan, a number of people who worked with me in the past have been working with him. he has a strong, strong record like reagan did in terms of plan to rebuild our military and a time when we need to show power in the world again. this is someone who has a well thought out plan to not only when the party's nomination, but when you pair him up with hillary clinton, who has been fortunate that most of the national media's attention has

been on the republican contest to, because the more people see how weak hillary clinton is, the more they see they can't trust her, whether dealing with her e-mails or how shamefully she told the families one thing about benghazi when she knew full well something different. this is someone the american inple -- and particularly the midwest, when people see the facts. when she is fully exposed and the contrast against the principled, conservative candidate who sticks to his guns , this will be a great contest for us when ted cruz is the nominee. about this,k you you and i have talked about this in the past and degreed about this, the political culture in wisconsin as you probably know, i spoke with donald trump yesterday and was trying to describe the culture as being values come ability, and decency, and that perhaps the be approach is not going to

embraced by republicans here in wisconsin, so just talk to me a little bit about the political culture and wisconsin and how donald trump is going to play here. gov. walker: well, i think one of the strengths of ted cruz, and may be part of that is coming from the middle of the country, but coming from the middle of the country i think having those sorts of roots, and importance on family, coming out and having a father being a preacher, i can relate to that because as the son of a minister , you are taught to stand up on your believes in not back down, but you are taught to be decent. i think it's incredibly important. we showed five years ago when had people from within the state and thousands of people from out of the state doing some pretty over-the-top things that i

instead of responding in kind, we tried to defuse the tensions and focus on getting results, but not backing down. sometimes i think there is a mistake, the washington elite sometimes don't get, if you don't bring your chest all the time that doesn't necessarily mean that you are backing away from things, and that's what i like about ted cruz. and sticks to his guns. he has been pushed many times over, not only by the left, but sometimes by even those in his own party, but he stayed true to who he is and what he believes in, and i think that will go over very well. gov. walker: how do donald trump in his style play in wisconsin? how do donald trump and his style play in wisconsin? gov. walker: we saw some of that reaction five years ago when people try to counter that. it did not go well.

i think ted cruz's approach fits well, similar to what i and others in the state assembly up theo do, to not fire opposition as much as just go forward. i tried to get donald trump to apologize for misrepresenting your record and saying the things he said about you, and you may have heard about this. he tried to blame time magazine. i hope people remember exactly what he has said. gov. walker: the thing i said even september is that the bottom line those talking points on the left, but the reality is iny have not penetrated previous elections, 2010, 2012, 2014, why? voters, independent and discerning democrats know better. property and income taxes are

down. tuition is frozen for the first time ever. our finances are in good shape. fundave a rainy day an bigger than when we took office. we have graduation rates higher than when we took office. if anyone has taken look at the facts, they know what the facts are. they know we have done well here in wisconsin. i appreciate that there are plenty of people who supported me. i just hope that everyone of them will give ted cruz a good close look and realize that if we have done in the past that instead of beating our chess, we went out and did the job. that's the type of leadership ted cruz had provided and will in the future. theow important is wisconsin primary next tuesday in this presidential race? i think it's great

for wisconsin that we are truly relevant, as i hope we will be again in the fall with the presidential election in november. i think -- i have said in the i think it's fitting that ted cruz one the caucuses in iowa. i think there will be a lot of similarities here that we like. we don't need a national media to tell us who the front runner is. we want to pick the person we fork is bright, best wisconsin, best for america, best for the future of our children and of this great country. cruz -- and i think he will win, and when he does i think it will shape the future of the nomination of the general election. >> do so anticipate an open, contested convention? gov. walker: i believe ted cruz will win next tuesday, and in doing so it puts them firmly on the path to getting 1237 delegate votes required to win

the nomination, and i think that great because it not only gives us a strong, united party, but it puts us in a next a position to defeat hillary clinton in the fall. >> are you concerned about the negative tone of this campaign? wisconsin, it often comes down to turn out, enthusiasm, and there are a lot of folks watching the negative ratings for some of these candidates, for tone, are you at all concerned about a campaign that is going to so discuss the voting public that they will throw up their plans and say the heck with this. gov. walker: i think that is a real concern nationally. something we is concern about here in wisconsin, but i also believe that we take our civil duty, our duty as americans, as voters, very seriously. has's why voter turnout historically been high in wisconsin. i think it will behind again next week, and i think that

wisconsin voter should pride themselves on the fact that we look past the bluster, the national media spin. i know the media outlets nationally like to have the tabloid fights. they love to have the trash talk. what i think voters are desperately looking for in wisconsin, and i think across the country, but particular in wisconsin, where willing to look past all that and say, what do the candidates actually stand for? what has been the record in the past, actions speak louder than words? what have they done in the past? what owhat would they do in the future? if you look at ted cruz -- think about it -- if it wasn't for ted cruz, person after person nationally has said rushed limbaugh has a great quote that talks about how we would be living under and is the right now if it weren't for ted cruz and his fight three years ago to take on the gang of eight.

that is just one of many examples, whether you agree or disagree on every issue, it is that thiso knowledge is a guy who has been consistent in his positions and when push show will stand up for the people he represents. >> governor scott, thank you for joining us this morning. gov. walker: thank you. ♪ this is my first election have in participating in. it is important to be involved. i went to the polls on tuesday and they said it was the most crowded it has ever been. so i'm excited to continue to be involved in the selection and vote for the presidential candidate. reason why i decided to vote is because this election season has probably for most

people in the most captivating ever. is important to be represented in the election process. >> i am voting in this election because with the extreme racial disparity in this country as well as the economic inequality, it is essential that we choose a president who will represent all of america. ♪ coming up shortly here on topan we take you live janesville, wisconsin, donald trump's first campaign stop in wisconsin ahead of next tuesday's primary. they are holding a town hall and we will take you there live momentarily. donald trump just wrapping up a news conference on his plane, talking about the charges against his campaign manager, charged with civil battery as he was videotaped in an altercation with a reporter in florida after the florida primary. he said in that news conference,

donald trump saying that he vows to stand by his campaign manager charged with battery today. we will show you the rally when he gets underway. until then, a look at campaign finance from this morning's washington journal. > schouten with "usa today." the presidential campaign has gone past the $1 billion mark. talk about reaching that market what it means. guest: it tells you how expensive this race is, and it that supert the role pacs are playing. that number takes into account what candidates themselves have raised and what the super pac's have helped toem raise -- not all super pac's, but just those aligned with individual candidates. 406breakdown is roughly million dollars raised by those super pac's. with you compare that

2012, and we can show our viewers that you are looking at $88 million in 2012. remembere thing to about 2012 is that super pac's were new. it was the first presidential race where super pacs played a role. president obama at that point had one. democrats were not that excited about it. it's surged so far. and then when you add in about million dollars so far, that the candidates have race, that is where you get over $1 billion. host: let's look at the candidates and where they are. 312 for republican -- 312 ,illion dollars for candidates democratic candidates. $311 million for republicans. hillary clinton has spent about

$32 million so far. host: just in the month -- guest: justin the month of february. ast: so what does that mean far as raising money? guest: hillary clinton has raise the most money during the course of the election cycle, and that is not surprising. she is someone with deep networks and has been involved in politics for quite a while. bernie sanders has done a very good job of raising money from small donors online. he raised $4 million as of the end of yesterday, and between saturday when he won all three caucuses and the end of yesterday, he is a very effective fundraiser. in january and february, he exceeded fundraising by secretary clinton. cash onen you look at hand as of february 29, she had a lot more money to rid -- she had a lot more money. guest: yes, she did.

he raised a lot, but he spent a lot. she has been raising early and has been able to marshal her resources. host: is she not spending as much? guest: she is spending a lot as well, but she had a head start. and he isig surge, out there organizing and spending and getting people out particularly for caucuses. that is where he does very well. 10 of the 14 races he has one bank far are caucuses, and those require a lot of organization. host: what is he saying that means for his chances in the general election, if he is spending as quickly as he is taking in? guest: he is a prodigious fundraiser. he believes that the small donors will keep coming back and feeding what he calls the revolution. and really, he is able to turn on the spigot quickly. share withe we

from "the new york times" -- guest: it is early. are -- the states we are heading into, in the midwest and the northeast, secretary clinton's home state of new york, where 291 delegates are at stake. host: it is quite the clash. guest: she more recently represented it as a senator. host: let's talk about

republicans. when you look at presidential spending, ted cruz is spending nearly $18 million. donald trump is spending almost $10 million. john kasich is spending about $4 million. let's talk about these numbers a little bit, where the money is coming from for these republican candidates. guest: ted cruz has been among the best fundraisers around the remaining republicans. he has managed to get a lot of support from small donors. he has something called cruz crowd, encouraging small donors to bundle their donations together. he also has a number of super pacs that have drawn in a lot of money. that is not reflected there, but it speaks to the level of support he has from some very wealthy people. -- whomercer, who has helps run a hedge fund in new york, for instance, was a big

donor to a super pac. there are people who are giving $10 million and $11 million each to super pacs for helping ted cruz. the story is different for donald trump. donald trump has insisted he is not actively fundraising. he does have some donate buttons on his site. and about 27% of his money has come from other people. but the majority of this is coming from donald trump the billionaire real estate mogul. he has lent his campaign about $24 million so far. host: that is your headline from one of the recent pieces, donald trump is spending near $25 million. he has loan that in his campaign. -- he has loaned that in his campaign. what does that mean? guest: he can recoup it. he can give himself alone and he can be repaid. if he decides he wants to start raising a lot of money from other people, the campaign can repay him before this is all

said and done. so, you know, it is not exactly giving it out right. he could get some of it back. we will see. host: what if he were not to win the nomination and he has loaned himself this money? is there any legal action then? guest: the thing is, it can be tricky because you can sort of trick -- you can sort of quickly seek donations to recoup your loan. host: many campaigns end in debt. guest: you are right, but there are limits as to how much he can repay himself once the election is over. $250,000 is the amount that you can recoup once the election is over. host: i want to talk about the financial status of ted cruz. he sent out this e-mail less night saying, "tomorrow is too late. i e-mailed you two days ago, but the situation is serious.

as of right now, i am still well short of my fec mandated end-of-quarter deadline by more than $400,000." guest: people often take very desperate tones in their fundraising e-mails. i am sure he is feeling pressure to do well. has -- because he is someone who can write another check to get through the rest of april, so there is no doubt that there is a real push for cash. we will see. host: what about governor john kasich? he says he is going to stay in it. he is raising less money than the folks remaining. a second.ack for you had a lot of money being raised initially by jeff bush. the establishment money when there. once he got out, the establishment money went to marco rubio. out, it hasubio got

been a mixed bag. i do not think that john kasich has really pulled in the big establishment donors. a lot of them were sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how all this plays out. host: let's get to calls. andrew is up first from new orleans, an independent. what is your comment about money and politics? caller: thanks so much for coming on the show. i have two questions. considering the republican failure tcall on a single candidate early on in the , theygn or at any time are still disheveled and unable to pick a candidate, why are corporations and interest groups donating to such a fractured party with a seemingly low chance of they november victory? according to "the washington post," all of the republican candidates have had $600 billion

donated, where his democrats have $300 million? cycle, unique election what lasting effects do you see? guest: let me tackle the long one first. keep in mind that this was a very crowded field. when you look at that $600 million raised through the end of february, that reflects money that went to jeb bush and marco rubio and two mike huckabee. it was a big, big field. how this plays out. ♪

who lined up very early on behind former florida governor jeb bush hisly to see their money -- super pac raised $118 million, and that was notalive. host: what happens to that money that was raised? guest: we will see what happens. there was about $16 million remaining in his super pac at the end of february. waso not know how much

the freedom partners action pac is the main super associated with the koch

brothers put a lot of money into the ohio senate race. you're seeing donors talk along these lines. about are concerned donald trump candidacy and its essential impact on races down the ballot, so they're moving to protect vulnerable republican senators. hi, john. you are next. >> if you can give $10 million ,o a candidate like ted cruz the going to expect something. he doesn't pay income taxes. he doesn't pay property taxes. manager.edge fund texas, but moved

to puerto rico. he is backing ted cruz. if you give $10 million to ted cruz, you're going to want something in return. i guarantee you that. , jean, when you think. >> i would like to know who's going to get all this money back her. >> what you mean? these hedge funds are paying in using their own companies to advertise. >> i'm not following. would you mean. asking if they want something in return for the money? theo, i'm asking if companies are getting money back. the advertising companies that advertise get paid by the super

pacs, do they own the company? >> ok. i don't think we have seen lots of examples of people funding super pac's and then benefiting from the money they put into super pac's. i think that may be the question you are asking, whether somehow their companies are ultimately the beneficiaries of some spending on super pac's. lot of not seen a examples of that, although there is one firm connected to a ted cruz donor that does a lot of fairly sophisticated data analysis, that isn't active in campaigns. independent.ngton, >> i was wondering if you have , thathe book, dark money

tells all about the koch brothers from the beginning to the present day? >> i am in the middle of reading it right now. >> i think every voter in america should read that book before they vote. it makes you sick to your stomach to know the truth, and those koch brothers did everything they could on the face of the earth to keep that book from being published, but she stuck through it and got it something and it is that every voter should read. >> your thoughts. to she very interesting has been one of the first reporters delving deeply into koch family and the early role in politics. she did a very highly regarded family about the extent to which , theirh brothers

fundraising, their spending, helped to fuel that movement. there has been a lot of back and forth between her and the koch brothers. thatnk that her story is really ended up pushing charles koch to talk about his politics, his motivation. you have seen him discuss it a lot more publicly in recent years. i did an interview with him last april, and another late last , look, ihich he says am all about trying to defend my positions here as a libertarian. i am a free market person and believe in limited government, and that's why i am engaged in politics. it is a very interesting debate. >> at the same time, releasing his own book. a management of book. he did one before, and so this management-up, his

philosophy, how he runs his company. he thinks the way he runs his company can help everyone live better lives. to harry ino republican, welcome to the conversation. >> i was going to bring up the koch brothers. every time they bring up the koch brothers they forget about george soros. the other statement is i have is that my wife is a democrat. i am a republican. i told her to vote for s sanders, annotate why. the more money they can spend on the democrat side, the less they will have for the general election. trump doesid, donald not take that much money, and that is what is good. him,is why i'm supporting as well as one of my neighbors.

on thaty is catching -- thingst great ain't that great in this country. he may be the best president or the worst, but i will take a chance on donald trump before i will on a socialist or a woman worth 145 main dollars that criticizes rich people. it's fascinating that he is a republican and his wife is a democrat and they are both supporting donald trump. donald trump has managed to appeal to a lot of folks, particular working-class folks andormer industrial states, i think that the people i talked to who have supported him have found him refreshing. they respect the fact that he speaks his mind and they respect

the fact that he has been putting his own money into the race. what about down ballot? there is a lot of concern. control ofss of bins ends controlup i of congress. here is a republican from minnesota, fundraiser, saying everything is in play, the presidency, the supreme court, the house, and potentially the senate. if i were running and donald trump were going to be at the top of the ticket, i would disavow him. >> i think some republicans are making that calculation. found aious caller refreshing and will be voting for him. other people don't feel that way.

ofre has been a lot attention and controversy about his remarks about women, for instance great there are republicans who are very a big part of the electorate, this suburban female voter, will not be supporting him and they may have potential trouble. the republicans are trying to defend seven seats and states that president obama one and 2008 and 2012. to make somee political calculations about how they navigate this very interesting presidential race. >> on the democratic side, you have the story from the hill newspaper. senator grassley hits back at clinton after she pressured him and criticize him for not taking up the supreme court national nomination. here is a quote.

teresa and omaha, nebraska, you are on the air. >> good morning. i would like to know why the media is hesitant to mention small supportn's donations. they always mention bernie sanders small donators, but not hillary clinton's. >> ok. >> she has not done as well as senator sanders has among small donors, but one of the interesting things when you look

at the numbers is that she has improved her performance among last donors from 2008, the time she sought the presidency, so she is making inroads. she is a top fundraiser of the election cycle. regardless of party, she has worked hard to raise money. were talking about the presidential campaign. it has gone past the $1 billion mark, the money raised between the democrat, republican candidates, and super pac's. let me get in also more news egyptian airliner hijacked. reporting that the hijacker has surrendered at the

airport in cyprus. the situation there has been peacefully resolved. he was taken into custody, that from the bbc reporting that this morning. montana,ls, independent color. >> i just heard that last comment about the lady saying why you are not talking about hillary clinton's small donor donations. i just read a deal the other day about george clooney holding two , and two tickets are going for $325,000 apiece. i want to know if you call that a small donation. and her ties to wall street, where she's getting all this money for giving speeches since you won't give out her speech information, and to me both ,arties, including donald trump

are corrupt and we need somebody like bernie sanders. i'm proud to say i'm one of the small donors who have been for a donation, and every time i hear somebody or the media count him out, i get on and i give him $27. i'm 58 years old, blue-collar worker. i worked my whole life, and bernie sanders is the first person to represent me and my whole life. i voted for barack obama. don't get me wrong. he was here and great falls, montana, i held a , but when ihind him heard ralph nader say that he was getting more money from wall

street than any other candidate, it really upset me. there is an article, michelle aboutnder, who wrote the new jim crow that said neither one of these parties deserved the african-american , that bernie sanders is the right man for the job, but he should be running as an independent. they should break up both of the big parties. it's just so frustrating to see all the coverage about donald , berniend here is a guy recent, who just one primaries, and you go to morning joe -- >> ok, let me just add to what you're saying.

here is a tweet from one of our viewers. >> that will be interesting. the caller definitely reflect some of the passion out there for senator sanders. $2700 -- 2 donation before the person can hit the maximum that they can give to a candidate. that is the value of the small donors. i think that sort of passion is reflected in his ability to his exceed in the caucuses as he has so far. >> mary, a democrat. >> thank you for taking my call. callers hadprevious asked if she had read dark

money. i was going to ask if she read clinton cash. it is an excellent book. -- i going to talk about have been a registered democrat since 1970, the first year i was able to vote, and in the last 10 years the democratic representatives are such liars that i cannot support any of them. i am a donald trump supporter at this point. i think our country will be in much better shape if we have somebody who understands the implications of this new trade agreement, the transpacific partnership. we have got to make the trade benefit the united states and other peoples products. the final comment i want to make is that millions of us have been in the military and have been given security clearances, and more millions of us have worked for the federal government.

clearanceop-secret for 10 years. if i had done anything that hillary has done, i would be in prison host: who are you going to support? caller: trump. wholeheartedly. he is not for sale for the big interests. i think it is amusing both the democrats and republican party are proposing them because they all benefit financially. host: that is the real appeal to viewers that call in. they say the same thing -- donald trump is not owe anybody anything. guest: that is very much what he says all the time as well. i think it'll be very interesting to see the general election because at some point the race gets so expensive it is hard to entirely self-fund.

host: we have passed one billion so how expensive can it get? guest: very expensive. the last race in 2012, i think the final price tag was $3.6 billion. it was like more than $6 billion for the whole shebang. it is very expensive. the calculation about how much of your own money you will put in -- frankly, donald trump says he is worth $10 billion. there are other estimates that it is probably far less so we will see how this plays out. i don't mean to question his motives in this case in what his intention is when it comes time to raise money, but i think he will have to ask other people to fund his campaign and we will see how much of it is small donors, how much the establishment that seems to dislike him so much now decides the back him. host: the viewer mentioned the

untold story of how and why foreign governments get rich. we covered that book and the author. if you go to our website, you can learn more about the book. you can find our interviews there. mike from north carolina, republican. hi. caller: good morning, ladies. i'm a republican, at least for today. i'm not a trump supporter, at least not yet, but i'm being pushed in that direction by simple realities. here is my question. -- any of the issues you bring up about mr. trump and his -- what he said about women and that -- it is fair game. he is a presidential candidate and i think the gloves are off. i think we need to know who these people are to the best of our ability. what i find troubling and a lot

of republicans and conservatives do consistently find troubling is what we think is a double standard. that is i'd like you to comment on do you think there is one and how do you feel about what we think is maybe a lack of interest in bill clinton's behavior? bill clinton is fair game too as he is tied to hillary and they are a team. she is obviously to me running cover for him for 40 years. if we want to talk about a war on women which the left likes to bring up consistently regardless of who the republican might be, then why aren't we talking about enabling of iter and her covering it up? that is my question. thank you. guest: that is interesting. i think as this race goes on, particularly with mr.'s front as the front runner, i think he will be raising that?

. there will be more of that into the general election. the question that hillary clinton is not bill clinton and what extent do you delve into his sort of well-known history when you're covering her as the candidate and covering her and her policy positions. i was here for the impeachment and covered that. it was well covered what happened in the monica lewinsky case. i think right now, people are focused on the candidates in front of us. host: we will go to florida, john, independent. caller: hi, ladies. host: good morning. iller: my question is, noticed a lot of countries around the world have labor parties. it is always about the price of

labor. all the major problems in this by businessessed trying to drive down the price of labor. we have business outspending labor 60 to one. doesn't that mean they by 60 politicians and labor ball -- buys one. thank you. think that you have americanally seen elections that battle between business and labor. with much of the labor unions and supporting democrats and will be out there in force trying to elect a democrat in the cycle. we have talked about what is interesting which is the little bit of the vision that is happening within the republican party. not of business groups

waiting into automatically support the republican front runner. -- i'm notferent sure i'm being terribly responsive. we traditionally have had organized labor supporting democrats. host: you have written about the supreme court nomination battle playing out. we have one conservative legal group who you wrote about. now, in states where there are battleground states for the viewerswhere showing with the initial crisis network play together. this was in iowa, colorado and indiana. > obama and his liberal allies have been working hard to make him an ally. there is no painting over the truth. he will be the tid tie-breaking vote. the amendment for the right to

bear arms, gutted. abortion, legalized. how do we know? because we have seen garlands record and it is not moderate. in two separate cases, he has demonstrated his strong hostility towards gun owner rights. even sided with the federal government on keeping personal information on anybody who purchases a god. unaccountable agencies like the epa includes cases where the court decided, he said it with the agency every time. according to the new york times, confirmed, it could be the most liberal supreme court in 50 years. moderate? nice try. wrote that is playing out in social media in the states we mentioned as well as the district of columbia and north dakota. you have this, the senate ac tied to harry reid

that is airing an ad in new hampshire. gop's refusing to hold a vote on the scotus nomination. >> donald trump wants the senate to delay the supreme court vacancy so we can choose the nominee next year. senator kelly ayotte is there to help. he refused to consider any nominee, ignoring the constitution. news and sabers call it appalling, wrong and disappointing. >> delay. >> senator ayotte, not doing her job. host: what is your reporting on this? it is interesting because this is the presidential race spilling into the supreme court race which is spilling into senate races.

senator harry reid, the senate minority leader, as soon as republicans said we will not have a vote on or even consider somebody to replace scalia, harry reid issued the democratic line of attack which was there waiting on president tron. trying to feed into a lot of the concerns that independent voters, democratic voters have about donald trump and tying that this -- to the supreme court. the stakes are really high. you would have a 5-4 liberal majority if he is elected. he is viewed as pretty moderate but you would have five people that are nominated by democrats. the judicial crisis network has spent more than $4 million on advertising to target vulnerable senators and to strengthen the spine of republican senators in key states because it means a

change of records for a very long time. host: what of those key states as illinois where senator mark kirk is up for reelection. he will meet with merrick garland today on capitol hill. this from the judiciary chairman, chuck grassley of iowa saying democrats could force a vote on the nominee. he said in a town hall, democrats could use a maneuver known as motion to discharge to move the nomination out of the committee and onto the senate floor. republicans can stop them there. the maneuver would be subject to debate. setting up a procedural path that could require city votes to move forward. that would be tough for the 46 member democratic caucus, but could act as a test vote showing where senator stand on the nomination. laurel, maryland, a democrat. good morning.

caller: good morning. question and a bit of a comment in disguise. one thing i'm wondering with the election on the democratic side is, we have seen hillary is winning the african-american vote all around. i'm wondering how that is, considering if you look at their record, bernie is the only one out of the entire presidential spread that i'm aware of with any history of civil rights activism and yet somehow, hillary is the one who is winning more of the reputation in that regard and earning more goodwill from the african american community. guest: i think secretary clinton would say that she has a record of civil rights and has worked very hard over the years both as a young lawyer on these issues and keep in mind, secretary clinton has been in politics and around politics for a very long time, has very deep ties to a

lot of traditional democratic constituencies. there are some exit polls in some of the states that show bernie sanders doing well among young african-americans, a generational gap sort of seems to be cut across some racial and ethnic lines as well. host: stephen pennsylvania, a republican. good morning. caller: i would like to make a comment. i am retired, i'm a white man. i was an elevator mechanic for 25 years. i have probably been to half the buildings in the city your been in. i grew up in washington dc. i live in pennsylvania now. what i want to tell you is what

i observed, i worked construction in 1980. i worked my way into the maintenance and service there. years later, i had to come back and take it construction job in maybe the mid-90's. the thing i noticed. all of a sudden on the construction jobs, 18 story buildings in rosslyn, virginia, downtown washington, all over. all the hispanics. i'm standing there thinking, i grew up in a world, i remedy civil rights act, i read the washington post every day. and i'm sitting around and i'm thinking, we went to all this hell with civil rights and it would try to be objective and grew up thinking this is horrible, these young black guys, they need a shot now to make a better country. they need the good jobs now. they didn't have the good jobs

in the 40's and 50's and 60's. so what did we do? we open the border and i come back to the job. there's so many hispanics and mexicans on the jobs serving tacos on the truck wagon at lunchtime. host: steve, we're running out of time. caller: why does the african-american community, why would they support hillary clinton and an open border? host: we got to leave it there. guest: it's interesting. i think we will have this debate play out more. hillary clinton, it's an interesting debate happening among democrats on the question of immigration. i think both hillary clinton and bernie sanders very much support sort of overhauling the current immigration system we have rid you have seen in the past,

secretary clinton had some reservations about extending driver's licenses for instance in new york to people who were not documented. it's an adjusting debate. -- it's an interesting debate. i don't know if i have a neat answer for your caller. i think it speaks to the underlying tensions and divides. host: it's a call we have heard before expressed about immigration proposals need -- mean loss of jobs are african-americans. we have to leave it there, thank you for joining us with usa today. follow her reporting on their website and on twitter. thank you for being here. >> we have been keeping our eye on the kaufman center in wisconsin waiting for donald trump, his first campaign appearance ahead of next tuesday's primary in wisconsin. scheduled to get

underway in about 45 minutes. it is running late. heavy security around the center and the holiday inn express. earlier today, florida police charged donald trump's campaign manager with simple battery in connection to an incident earlier this month. lewida police charged cory indowsky. he turned himself in and was charged with one count of battery. surveillance video showing the lewindowskymr. grabbing a woman. she was asking donald trump a question during the event in palm beach, florida. it could be a couple of minutes. an update on a road to the white house coverage -- we will be covering hillary clinton in new york city tomorrow. live coverage at 11:30 a.m.

eastern. even though the colorado caucuses are long gone, the candidates, republican candidates are still trying to settle the score in terms of delegates. politico reports to the unsettled three-way primary appears to be headed towards a contested convention in july. colorado's republican assemblies over the next week are for donald trump and ted cruz, major possibility for them to win delegates. we get more from a reporter we spoke to today. . >> the colorado republican caucuses took place a month ago. eliing us from wisconsin is stokols, and national political reporter for politico. thank you for being with us. >> of course. host: explain what is going on. tooks a caucus that place a month ago still going on? guest: when the parties decided

to do the caucuses, they throughout the straw poll. they did not think they could do a preference poll and actually execute it. the party had undergone a lot of changes, organizational questions. if you talk to people that were involved, they say we didn't think we could carry out an actual caucus so we did away with it. the caucuses, the people who showed up to vote on march 1, those votes really mean nothing. what you have now is the delegates have yet to be apportioned. there are 34 delegates that will be selected. that will take place at the seventh congressional district assembly. they will elect three delegates. at the state convention on april 9, you have the party activists. 6000 people who are going to determine who goes to cleveland and whether or not those people

are cruz or trump supporters or unbound which could give them ine power in a floorfight cleveland. host: who are these candidates to be a delegate? party insiders, elected officials, former officials? who are they? guest: these are people who are involved in politics. they have gone to caucuses and county assemblies. they have been going through this process of signing up to be a delegate and trying to be elected. these are not your average folks. and a lot of them are newcomers. 2012, went to the rnc in the colorado delegation was a who's who of the establishment. former governors, elected officials, all of those sorts of people. none of them are running to be delegates either because they don't really care anymore or have a candidate left in the race or don't have a close tie

to the party and the leadership. that opened the door for a lot of newcomers and cleared an opportunity for cruz or trump or any campaign that is well organized at this point in colorado. it is ted cruz who has the strongest organization when it comes to hunting down these delegates, but how the you organize something like this? they are relying on people who were already organized in colorado. rockywas a group called mountain gun owners, the grassroots conservatives. those folks have a seventh candidate trying to get on the ballot. they are getting their people to these assemblies and that i think is helping ted cruz. the leader of the group is on board with ted cruz. ted buck, loosely affiliated with some of the people behind that group. the cruz campaign does not have

any real paid staffers in colorado that i know of, but they haven't infrastructure they can tap into -- they have infrastructure they can tap into. bul they've invested in data. it is ahead of where the trump folks seem to be. if this is a jump ball and insider game, the advantages cruz. host: you are in wisconsin taking track of the primary next tuesday. this will take place later in colorado. in important on the results wisconsin to ted cruz or donald trump with an eye on colorado? guest: i think what happens in wisconsin is important because we're getting down to an almost climactic stage of this race. the delegate mass only really works for ted cruz if it works at all if he wins here.

behe does not, he wiulll mathematically eliminated. if trump does not win, it will be tougher for him to get to 1237. what the establishment folks are looking for is to prevent trump trump to get that number. trump is defeated especially in wisconsin, if ted cruz can win a northern state, a primary state like wisconsin, that injects more confidence into the anti-trump people. at this point, the investment has not paid great dividends but i think if they continue to invest and fight, any victory is a little bit of a morale boost.

, the majority of the electorate may not be voting for him. that may give him courage to continue to fight on the way to cleveland. host: 34 delegates at stake. donald trump and ted cruz fighting for those hidden colorado delegates. what do you think is going to happen? guest: i think a few unbound delegates will come out of it. i think ted cruz will probably win a few more delegates than trump. again, this is 34 delegates. they will be probably split, relatively evenly. i don't think it will make a huge difference in the math. right now, every little delegate counts at this point for both campaigns. host: all the details available online at politico.com. eli stokols, thank you for your

time. guest: thank you. >> back live here on c-span, back to janesville, wisconsin. the donald trump townhall getting underway shortly one week ahead of tuesday's wisconsin primary. on the issue of delegates, the associated press reporting that marco rubio is working to play a role in the republican national convention even as his rivals scramble to pick up convention delegates claimed by the florida senator before he suspended his campaign. senator rubio has sent letters to republican officials in states where he has won delegates, charging he wants to keep the delegates even though he is no longer an active candidate. donald trump with less than halfway to the goal of the 1237 that he needs. he has 736 delegates. ted cruz with 463. john kasich with 143 delegates.

you can follow that cap of the dough -- count of the delegates online at c-span.org for further details. janesville, wisconsin at the holiday inn express. last night, six protesters were arrested and can face trespassing and disorderly conduct and obstructing officers charges after they entered the holiday inn express on monday as a anti-donald trump protest. it is an indication in a smaller scale of what we might see tomorrow. heavy security around the conference center. live coverage waiting for donald trump.

♪

>> we are in wisconsin waiting for the start of the townhall meeting with donald trump who had a pre-townhall news conference with reporters that wrapped up about an hour ago or

so at the airport in janesville. the wisconsin primary next tuesday night. we will have complete coverage and your reaction. 42 delegates at stake. it is a winner take all state. donald trump more than halfway of the goal of 1237. he has 736 delegates followed by ted cruz with 463 and john kasich with 143. and johnr ted cruz kasich try to present themselves as alternatives to donald trump, several super pac's are making the case for both candidates. here's a look at what voters in wisconsin are seeing. >> they whine and suggest john kasich quit the presidential race. of course, is the only one who can beat hillary clinton, not trump or cruz. kasich wins.

10 points more likely than curz. 15 points more likely than trump. unless you want this president clinton, vote kasich to win. >> if you don't want donald trump to win, your choice comes down to this -- math. only ted cruz can beat donald trump. john kasich cannot do it. the math won't work. a vote for kasich actually helps trump by dividing the opposition. it is time to put differences aside. to stop trump, vote for cruz. >> back live to the conference center in janesville, wisconsin with the republican primary a week from today. donald trump holding a townhall. we will have it live as it gets underway. in wisconsin today, news that

wisconsin governor scott walker announced today that he is supporting ted cruz for president. he called him a principled constitutional conservative. he ended his own presidential campaign last september. he is one of several former candidates to endorse senator cruz. he has already received the support of jeb bush, carly fiorina, lindsey graham and rick perry. ♪