mr. sutton. >> thank you, mr. chair do you happen to know how much was spent overhead on the campaign the mark farrell campaign. >> i apologize. i don't it might be 2, 3, 4 some of the documents i don't know if you know. >> and i ask because to me. >> several hundred thousands of dollars. >> it brings some of the when you're spending half a million dollars half a million dollars is a lot when you're running for president you spend billion dollars it is a small campaign with hundreds of dollars of dollars on local television so see that amount of activities and that level of an expenditure within a campaign that probably is somewhere in the mid hundreds of thousand dollars it is for me a little bit hard to believe that r a reasonable person wouldn't know about this activity because that amount of money paid for a lot of things it is not a significant immaterial amount of money in relationship to the money spent on the campaign with the xhuchdz. >> everyone told the f b b credit that everyone involved in the campaig

mr. sutton made as sxhairn did the stimthsdz in effect and basically an admission of guilt >> good evening charles bell i've been corresponding about you most recently as today we believe that you should reject mr. farrell's refusal to pay or acknowledge responsibility or pay for the forfeiture my letter details that in quite a bit of detail i'd like to address a few points that were made in argument first with respect to the issue of the f p pc stimulation mr. lee stipulated on behalf of common sense voters that was a controlled community of mark farrell new mr. fairly wouldn't have let him stipulate to that unless i audience add this phoney independent committee was controlled by mr. farrell it's a indisputable and of legal significance with respect to the stauchltstute of limitations he was required to file year-end statements on the year-end statement of common sense voters coming back to the fact the supervisor farrell committee it should have been executed as a controlled committee of mark farrell so the statute of limitation wouldn't have run at the thought it running now as his per

mr. sutton representing mr. farrell and the complainants called and asked me how it got put on the back on the agenda i told them what i told him to everybody understand what we intend to do tonight that this matter was on the agenda and noxious of the discusses a request was made to the commission that the forfeiture letter westbound waved which lead to comments and discussions about what was the normal practice of the commission in connection with the waiver of forfeiture letters in the normal course the way it was handled by the staff and the executive officer either issuing the waiver or denying the waiver the matter was dropped never a vote at the march meeting of the commission whether they wanted to handled in that same way and so after that meeting ended and i had a discussion with executive director about the procedure and whether or not the commission should be the one to make the decision rather than he he and it shouldn't be a burden on him i was also advised one the commissioners took a strong posit

mr. sutton. >> thank you, mr. chair do you happen to know how much was spent overhead on the campaign the mark farrell campaign. >> i apologize. i don't it might be 2, 3, 4 some of the documents i don't know if you

mr. gerhardstein: ok. let's look at the decision grid. you suggest that this is a threshhold question for all of us. judge sutton: it is a way of thinking about this and maybe it is simplistic. mr. gerhardstein: it is one way to do it. you look at the question over here and what is the state definition of the access they will provide to marriage. and that can be a fundamental right to marriage, saying it is a bilateral association and it is a fundamental right to marry. a number of states have already ruled that way. if that is the situation, our case is simple. then you have, under due process, a notion that once you are married, that attaches all kinds of vested rights. you have important parenting rights and child-rearing rights that are recognized by the supreme court. for history, that has been transportable across state lines. so that is a separate argument that there is a fundamental right to marriage recognition that is transportable. then you have another line windsor, which is equal protection. if you have an unusual situation like section three of doma where the federal government always accepted some

lindstrom: neutral -- judge sutton: marriage is including one group but not another? mr. rom: by defining marriage to be between a man and a woman -- judge sutton: basically neutral as genderwise, i understand that. i agree with that. but i understand why it's neutral as between people of one sexual orientation and another. mr. lindstrom: i think the answer would be that it doesn't prohibit them from marrying either. so neutral, there was no evidence that this was done to exclude them. the evidence that it was simply continuing the definition throughout michigan's history. judge daughtrey: you mentioned the sixth circuit's presidents. i assume you're talking about davis? mr. lindstrom: as a friend of davis, yes, your honor. judge daughtrey: you know the problem with the quality foundation as i read it, it depended on, it relied upon the supreme court's decision which was reversed in lawrence. so i wonder -- mr. lindstrom: your honor, the equality foundation opinion mentions bowers only when talking about prior history and it's based on roemer. it was remanded in light of r