marry and center cindy fornelli on the i mplementation of the dodd-frank law. our campaign 2014 coverage includes the iowa senate debate. by the way, on monday, the debate over kentucky's senate seat currently held by mitch mcconnell and his challenger alison grimes will be. go to our website, campaign 2014 website for more information. speaking of this political season and the upcoming 4 pfeiffer minutes, we are interested in hearing from you about the qualities and qualifications that you look for when picking a political candidate. maybe it's a decision about parties or personality if that

matters. if those three things factor in, are there those. here on the phone lines 202-585-3881 for republicans, 2025853880 for democrats agend r independents, 202-585-3882. if you want to make your thoughts known by computer on do so as well. roof us on twitter. send an e-mail to a journal at cspan.org with the upcoming e leningsz, more stories about what people think and political people think about the future of the senate. i did highlighted in "the new york times" this morning. take a look at kansas. it says the probability forecast models fluctuate from week to

week. they are based upon different methodologies. the huffington post forecast gave republicans a 54% chance of winning control of the senate. the "new york times" model says 66%. the warrant post election lab prediction was 95%. the election consortium gave democrats a 49% of maintaining control. this highlights the current rates between pat roberts and greg orr saying here in kansas, the independent greg orman has certain the lead by casting himself as the pragmatic problem sofsher while avoiding taking stands on some controversial issues issues. pat roberts but will that hold up over the campaign's last three weeks? political scientists have found there is a greater influence. a non-republican for the senate in 1932. mr. roberts and as alies depict

him as a closeted obama democrat. so with those race ins mind, one in particular when you take a look at kansas, over all, the idea of how you pick a political candidate. again, there could be a variety variety of factors that help you to do so on the phone lines this morning: jeez from georgia, republican line, how do you pick a candidate? >> caller: i am a businessman, myself. i pick people that have a business background like in georgia, david riperdo, he is a business leader running against sam nun's daughter. he is much more conservative: for governor, i am from andrew hunt, a conservative businessman i want some businessmen in

washington and in atlanta to cut spending. we have an $18 trillion debt. i guarantee you when david perdue gets up there, he will join with cruz and bam taxpayer champions. to sum it up, pedro, i try to get people that have a successful business background like david perdue in georgia and andrew hunt in a georgia. i get fired up. i am having a hard time sleeping at night. >> winchester, illinois, independent line, this is hugh. we are asking about how you decide on a political candidate. go ahead. >> caller: thank you. for taking my call. i choose a candidate with regard to rec quizits, character and ideology. >> so when it comes to character, what do you mean by that? >> being honest. >> and when it comes to ideology, specifically what are you looking for? >> whether they are moderately conservative usually.

>> and so, being an indents, that's how you look at things from a moderate conservative point of view? >> yes, sir. >> so this november, would you mind sharing who fits those qualities for you? >> well, i will be honest, not too many people. i like dick durbin's character, but his ideology, i just can't stant. he is liberal from the word go. he puts a lot of, you know, political jargon out like he pointed out that, you know, ebola virus has caused by -- underlying factor was the republicans not passing immigration reform and, you know, and all of that because and so forth. >> led to, you know, so forth. and they also said there was a version that walgreens, they

wouldn't be atwalgreens on each corner if they went overseas which is no the true. i know he did that. he is being provocative. but still, it turned me the wrong way. >> okay. that's you. you heard somebody mention business. you heard somebody mention character and ideology. you may have another category that you look at when you pick a political candidate. again, 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-588-308 for democrats and from xinzington pennsylvania on our republican line, michael is next. good morning. >> caller: thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. i am -- i usually choose a dan data based upon how well they adhere to the constitution, how much respect they have for the rule and law and the traditions of this country. i recently took a trip down top visit james madison's house and

thomas jefferson's and also, we read some biographies on him and things like that and i just think those men were so brilliant and they gave us the constitution. it's so important that that is such an important thing that we follow that because we have to have some guy going through as to what made america great and what gives us our freedoms and liberties. >> so when it comes to someone who adheres to the constitution, when it comes to congress or people you would vote for, is there a standard bauer that you have in mind that fits those qualifications? >> there is the rub. and there are very few candidates that fit that mold, but some more so than others. i say generally, republicans have a little bit more respect to the rule of law than democrats. at least the current crowd.

but i would say people like ron paul and rand paul, people, stlernl other republicans who really thing that we should be following the constitution when it comes to war and when it comes to our monetary policy. >> michael says they would read their bio, look at their past achievements, socialviews, economic views and life experience and statements to understand motives. new kensington, pennsylvania, that was michael. we will hear next from brian in utah, independent line. hi. >> caller: hey t theiring for having me. the truth has no agenda. the first sign of failure is blame george bush. this is no longer a government for the people by the people. it's a government for the politician by the politician until all of you americans wake

up and see that, the politiciansly. why do they spend billions of dollars to get re-elected. >> brian, do you vote for politicians? >> yes. i vote, but i vote. i see what their -- you know, see how they are. i don't vote just democrat, republican. i try to, you know, see what i can find out about the person. but you never find nothing out. they just tell you what you -- what they thing you want to hear so they can get by. >> when you look at a potential candidate, what is top of the list for you as far as qualifications? >> well, not warren hatch and not these mitch mcconnells and not these chuck schumers and these nancy pelosis, the regs on and on again and they just don't care about we, the people. >> from michigan, here is greg. congress is from croswell,

michigan, our independent line. good morning. >> good morning. i just want to say that our country is going through a really bad time. everybody knows that with all of these different things that's coming at us, and if i vote for somebody, they will have to be a person of god. you know we need god to help us get out of this mess we are in. not money. you know, we need god. >> so when you choose a can daut, let me -- and i am going to just assume from what you are just said, is it a religious quality that you look for or other things you look for when you choose a candidate? >> caller: religious qualities. you know, i breivik in people that need to be honest, don't

want no murderers or pedophiles. none of that stuff. you know, of course we would never know that but you can tell a person by their fruits. host: maria, how do you choose a candidate? >> caller: how do i choose a candidate host: yes, ma'am. >> caller: i am talking, right now, i am in minnesota. i am a mexican american. i am being profiled as a bad person. we have 13 towns in corruption. all has been lost in the corruption. how i choose it, i don't know if you heard that guy about carlson. hello host: go ahead. >> caller: carlson, a neurologist, he came out on one of the shows that night. he wants to -- he is going to

retire, and they asked him if he wants to run for america. and he said we need to clean up america. host: host what does that mean for the way you choose a candidate? >> caller: i think i have been profiled as a bad person because i am a mexican american. and i used to work for the state of minnesota they have actually corrupted my name. host: you mentioned that. yes, go ahead. >> caller: yes. so all of my paperwork for the government in the corruption. host: from twitter, a viewer as this: how do i choose a political candidate? simple. i choose one that will hurt me less and that is never a republican. if you go to the houston chronicle this morning, there is a story taking a look at the governor's race there and specifically an ad from the wendy davis campaign. saying the topic of greg abbot's

disability has been out there all along, something he has referred to in his -- often has referenced in his g.o.p. campaign for governor. on friday, the subject e ruktd like like aton when she leased a political advertisement that portrays him as hip critical when it comes to do to defending legal rights of disabled and others. the their second spot when abbott called offensive asserts that abbott became wealthy from a legal settlement after his 1984 accident but as a yoon elected official denied releaves to others seeking damage for their energy. here is the ad from the wendy davis campaign. >> we will in that by a recently ad from the abbott campaign. >> a tree fell on greg abbot. he sued and got millions. since then, spent his career working against other victims. abbot argued a woman whose leg was amputated was not disabled because she had an art official

limb. he ruled against a rape victim who sued a corporation for failing to do a background check on a sexual predator. he cited with a ho -- sided with a hospital who failed to stop a dangerous surgeon. greg abbott is not for you. >> after my accident, i had to rebuild my strength. i would roll up to an 18 story parking garage, spending hours going up the ramps with each floor that got harder, and harder. but i wouldn't quit. just one more. just one more. i see life that way. it's how to get to the top, we must push ourselves to do just one more. >> we are asking you for the remainder of our time how you choose a political candidate. the lines will be on the screen mark from ohio, democrats line, hi. >> good morning, pedro. pedro, on vote on one of the main things is a candidate's

previous stand on the environment because, you know, what gets me is these republicans are saying, as the first guy who called in today, he likes businessmen. listen, sir, businesses and businessmen aren't the environment. i have nothing -- they have nothing to do with the environment. >> that's where republicans are gotten off of the track, especially with the younger voters because they understand better than people my age and older. i am 63 thighs mostly white guys just don't get it when it comes to the environment and what's going on with humans affected host: who have you voted for in the past that sums up those concerns? >> sherrod brown, marsy cappers is good over here bernie sanders is good as an independent.

but, you know, i but, you know, i am a trout fisherman. i just got back from montana. i was out there for seven weeks flyfishing for trout and just to see what they are trying to do to a beautiful resource we have, it's just scary. like i said before, pedro, the environment is not a business and has nothing to do with business ethics. >> ronnie from gilbertville, kentucky, independent line. >> caller: good morning. i just got to say, i would like to see more honest people. i know they will say anything in the world to get a vote, some of these men, year and years and year. and we need to vote in time. anything in the world to get your vote. then go right back. the same old lies. i speech to both parties.

people are standing up. put something in there. we would stand up for god almighty to quit killing young babies in their mother's womb like they do because it is murder. >> ronnie are you paying attention to the senate race there in kentucky between mitch mcconnell and alson grimes? >> pretty much, yes. >> who do you think you are going to vote for in that? >> i haven't really decided too much yet. i have not liked some of the things she said. you do not -- she would not answer who she voted for. that was a ridiculous non-statement. >> you can see, by the way, if you want to be interested, if you are interested in what's going on kentucky, that debate will take place monday, live on c-span at 8:00 o'clock. filed out more at campaign 214 website. we have more than 100 debates, planning coverage for the control of congress.

not only taking in debates all the time. we have also put those debates on arkansas i've that you can go to our website and view for yourself. joann, greensburg, pennsylvania. thank you. go ahead. >> thank you. i am a democrat, of course. and i am that way because there has been so much unfortunate grief and self interest associated with a lack of compassion with republicans and i feel the lessons of the past have been forgotten. isn't reagan and 30 years, we have had a raw deal. i think obama's legacy will be that he tried to battle an obstructive republican oppositional party while he tried to put appropriations in for the poor and middle chrys. healthcare, and i love elizabeth warren, bernie sanders, leaders in helping the middle class except for a brief respite from bill clinton and barracks obama

we have had trouble public policies. water and mcdonald's's prophets raise. thorntarian control. ayn rand would smile about it. >> it's the ing democrat tom harkin speaks, democratic bruce bailey will cam bain joni ernst in a tight race that has polls saying earnest with a slight lead. watch the debate on c-span. >> will be at 8:00 o'clock this evening. we will hear next from an iowan, tom in burlington. hello. >> caller: good morning. this is my first time calling in to c-span. the main thing i look for, for candidates is critical thinking

skills do they believe in evolution? do they believe in basic sciences? you just spoke like joni ernst for iowa, she doesn't believe in common sense science. so, i can't see how people can vote for people that don't have basic understanding of simple science. >> how has bruce braley weighed in on those issues? >> just the issue when it comes to environmental issues from climate change. all -- he's online with most democrats. i am an independent, but the democrats definitely represent the sciences community way over republicans even on social media. all i see from all of my conservative friends is just mocking of all of the basic science. concerns

>> tom, i will invita you to watch the debate tonight at 8:00 o'clock on sea spain. if you miss it, camp it later on our website. >> that's the iowa senate debate. other debates that we are taking in all the time. we will give you the rundown of what we are covering. florida, larry, democrats line. hi, there. >> you on. >> go ahead. >> okay. listen, to me, any party that strives to prevent people from voting goes out of their way is no party for me. i used to be a republican and it thank god, i have seen the light. the republican spaert a party for cheap labor. they don't give a darn about about the environment. they are supposed to be the party of family values. they care about making a big buck now regardless of the sequences. i am so glad i saw the light before i passed away. i am up in years. i am going ort a winner because i am going to be voting democrat all the way.

host: larry, that applies to the current gubernatorial debate -- race that's going on? there was a debate yesterday with charlie chris who was a former republican and then the republican candidate, he should be in jail for what happened to his company being fined $17,000,000,000, the 5th amendment 75 times. this guy never should have run for governor. he should be in prison. >> james next from texas. republican line, hi. >> hey. i am james. first of all, i am not a are a republican. i am an american citizen. but i vote for the person that is more in line with the word of god. in other words, i don't believe in gay marriage: i don't believe in abortion. and i don't believe in what do

they call the people of peace when there are people of war. there are killers ner being deceived like most black people are voting for obama because he says he is a christian. anybody can say they are a christian. >> who do you -- >> and be a muslim. >> specifically who do you vote for then if you didn't put knows qualifications for, who have you voted for that follow those? >> i am not going to tell you expected who i voted for but i mostly vote republican becaubecause host: because? >> caller: i follow the one that -- we will leave it there. this is on twitter saying a viewer says edmon christian saying i will vote for anyone who is not now in office, an anti-incumbent. john new jersey petersburg, village, democrats line.

>> caller: my name is johnny action again. my biggest thing is i vote in a way of what's good for america. how we forgot about that. republicans, democrats, international i am what's for america. we are in this mess together with some overseas, in country. we need republicans and democrats and independent to get together and make decisions so we can fix this. otherwise, we are going down collectively and it's not going to be republicans or independent going down. it's going to be we as the united states collectively brother in law there are places action current trees out there waiting for the united states that this basically destroy yourself so they can move in on us. okay? that's going to eventually going to happen from my personal opinion. >> in village, there is a senate race going on. it's the incumbent senator warner against gillespie. who are you thinking about in that race? >> mark warner. >> why? >> i see what mark warner done

for petersburg area and actually for the state, itself okay. and i support what he is doing right there. >> uh-huh. kenneth is next and he's from texas on our independent line. hi. >> how are you doing? i my make is kenneth harris. i want to discuss briefly the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results. >> that's how i approach voting. i don't quite understand why people complain and over and over again and yet we can continue to vote and we end up with the same results i am recently moved from democrat to independent. i don't believe in continuing to look for a change in these candidates. however, i will say that i am upset by comments who continue to complain about barack obama

even on some news stations that are heavily democratic with that there is an element of racism and say why doesn't this man bring the union and congress. they don't understand. i ask why don't you go over to iraq and try to stop the beheadings? they are racists. while you connect the first black president to taub to a congress that the gop which is infiltrated by hate groups and insurgence of the clan, they are. >> do you identify yourself as an independent but generally vote for democratic candidates then? >> i used to but i am disturned by leon panet teata and hillary clinton who attack who disparage

appear expand ner chief. >> let me bring it to the local it level. who are you thinking about voting for? >> caller: i am a christian. and i used to vote on the basis of the fact that concerning the abortion issue. however >> the on slaught of the republicans with the voert suppression, i am going to have to lean towards wendy capes. i speak in my church. it's mostly tea party, and i tell them, they say, you can't vote republican -- i mean, democrat because they are anti-aabortion. and as a christian, you cannot stand for that. i say, you have to understand that israel is state-funded abortion. but yet no politician, republican, stands up and says we need to address the issue in

israel. >> tommy, new york, new york. republican line. good morning. >> caller: hi. how are you? >> caller: fine. >> caller: i used to vote. i would go vote who a better candidate was. mostly, i am republican. one or two person if they were on the other side, were better, i would. the democrats have destroyed the whole world. this is a stupid liberal way of thinking and they got everyone bamboozled. all they say is we are for the middle class. this is the middle class. they are not for the middle class. all they do is tax the middle class and give to the poor. they are for the poor. i am from new york. i see it all the time. they destroyed the middle class access you all of these stupid liberals and say we have to get every one of them out of. i don't think. they look like they are hip notized or something.

>> sfa, november, what does that mean for you come together nove? who are you voting for in light of what you said? >> got to get the liberals out. >> specifically, who are you voting for? >> caller: all republicans. we have to get the liberals out of congress. got to take over aggie. >> matt from the california. democrats line. >> caller: thank you for c-span. it's very hard to choose a candidate because the people that tend to run are people who are power seeking or motivated by power. and i would really love to see somebody like bill moyers run. a thinking person, intelligent person, somebody with heart, who knows government. he would be a wonderful candidate. i am so saddened and disgusted by what's going on congress. people can't work together. everything is polarized.

and, you know, somebody was talking about they vote on the basis of who is not -- who is anti-abortion. and that's just kills me because everybody who is talking about abortion is a male and if men got pregnant, abortion collinics would be like jeffy lube. >> you identify yourself as a democrat. for the governor's race, are are you voting for jerry brown? >> yeah. >> why is that? >> he hasn't done a bad job. you know, personally, he is the not my cup of dein every way. he has at of experience. he is an intelligent man. things actually are pretty -- where live in san mateo, things are going well nus county. we have a really thriving area. uh-huh. >> good tax base, the parks are good, the water is good. the streets are good. things are good here. >> so when you say he is not your cup of tea, what's one

thing that maybe you did he ever on him with? >> well, you know, it's been a while since i really examined his record on stuff. i mean he is just kind of whiney to me. i think for the most part, he does all right. i will like to see somebody who would do a little bit more about the failed war on drugs that's like a money pit. and kind of like get that out of the way we have so many things that need money much more than pouring money into the prohibition against drugs. >> maggie from california. the headline in the washington post. others as well. talking about the series of airports that are going to prepare themselves to start screening for ebola for those coming in from certain western african countries here to talk about the process and the law firming today. alicia caldwell covers home land security and immigration issues. ms. caldwell? >> good morning. >> good morning.

how are you? >> fine. thank you very much. give us a sense of what happens when it comes to the screenings. >> start again. they are going to pull aside passengers who are arriving from the three west african countries. the epicenter of ebola come from or traveling through one of those countries. >> yes. fill out a questionnaire, provide data on where you are going to be. where you have been prior to this and take your temperature with a no-touch they rememberom ter because that's one of the fastest indicators, i am told of ebola. you there are going to be people with temperatures who do not have ebola. >> that's kind of one of the complications of ebola, if you will. there is lots of causes for fever. not all, of course, are ebola there are going to be temperatures but not a whole bunch of ebola just because you

have a temperature if that makes sense. they are going to keep track of those who come through those areas. anybody who seems like an immediate case, who has perhaps had contact with somebody with ebola or so on may end up quart quarantin quarantined, end up being referred to a doctor. they are gore to go given a cure of the symptoms to look for. if you become il, go to your doctor. take this notice with them with you tell them where you have been. so on. so that will start at new york's jfk. then it will expand out to the other four airports after that, chicago, o'hare, atlanta, dulles and forgive me. i forget the fourth. >> newark. >> newark airport. >> alicia, what if someone refused to be examined? >> there is a couple of things

you can do. so obviously as a u.s. citizen, they can't deny you entry into the united states. so is the cdc, centers for disease control feels as though you have -- you are a risk, you appear il, they can quarantine you. they can do that regardless of citizenship. if you are not a u.s. citizen, there is always the option to deny you entry. if there is a concern that you are a health risk. the overriding concern is not necessarily denying entry. it's getting you healthcare if you are affected with ebola or they fear you aranding with ebola. there is some legal authority that stretches back many, many years to quarantine people, to ensure that the traveling public, the public at large is not at risk from an infectious disease. we have seen this before with other employeeses, tb in particular.

there is quite a bit of latitude, you know. if you flat out refuse, again, you are a u.s. citizen. you are not going to be denied entry in the united states. there are some avenues you can go to present the spread of a deadly disease quite frankly. >> that's sort of the last resort. you know, we are not going to sigh a whole bunch of people from my understanding locked up, if you will, because they refuse to have their temperature taken. it's a curious concern that the government is certain seriously and wants to ensure that we don't have an outbreak here in the united states. we have had one person diagnosed in the united states obviously. he is deceased now, but the goal, obviously, is to not let this pred the way it is going in africa. >> that's the effort. >> so going forward, are there

any unintended consequences, things you see as a reporter that maybe the general public might be interested in hearing as far as things that we may not know about the process or yet to experience? >> so far, it's pretty non-invasive from what they have described. obviously can those people coming from the centers is about 150 were told passengers daily who come to the united states have left from west africa, these particular countries. 95 or so present of them, 94%, will life at the five airports that the cdc and customs and border protection or the department of homeland security has selected for screening. >> so, we are going to pull this aside, the general traveling public should not see a big difference in their day, you know, in terps of crossing through customs and so on. are there unintended consequences? i think that has yet to be seen,

yet to unfold. these are complicated issues that potentially could have, you know, greater rimming effects. we don't anticipate that as yet. there won't be, you know, initially at least in the big scary moves that we are seeing on television, you won't even necessarily soo the masked from the customs and border sections. there will simply be leaving a thermometer, no touch, again, near the folks month who have arrived from west africa. these are not folks who have gotten on a plane linebiera and come straight to new york or newark or atlanta. they comes perhaps europe action brussels, so they have been traveling for a while and, you

know, perhaps are not -- if somebody is affordable, prperhaps not as symptomatic with the one that arrived in dallas but was asymptomatic when he left west africa and when he arrived at dulles and so on and so on. got you. alicia caldwell with the associated press telling us about the ebola screenings that began at jfk and other airports to be added. ms. caldwell action thank you for your time. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> back to your thoughts on how do you pick a political candidate? 202581. for democrats, independence 2025853882. larry up next, bowling greene, kentucky, independent line. hi? >> hello. how are you doing? >> fine. thank you. >> as far as picking a candidate, i will not vote for anybody that want to tote their religious beliefs. i think a person that want to

put their religious beliefs out there is totally unacceptable for any. that's my comment and thank you. >> how did you come to that, by the way? >> we all have different beliefs. you are entitled to believe in whatever you want to believe in now, you might believe in one thing. i might believe in something else. i don't think you did be -- i don't think you have a right to force your personal belief upon me we laws. your personal belief might go against mine. >> that's how i come to that conclusion. >> henry from louisiana, democrat's line. good morning. hello? >> hello. >> you are on. go ahead. >> yes. i vote for a candidate they support medicaid and medicare and they support the minimum wage increase and one

that believe in green and, also, that they keep jobs in america. i am from better expansion for the healthcare what they call obama care but affordable care. everyone should have healthcare because you can't pay for that hospital bill if you ever go to the hospital. >> why are healthcare -- why are healthcare issues of importance to you, especially when picking a candidate? >> because, you know, a concern about americans when you make sure everybody is taken care of in mcmorries. healthcare, you must have it. >> way, it help keep people from dying, keep people from when they are sick and unable to have affordable care is 1 of the best things that happen to america. like sorry security. i kind of put my more on healthcare plan, i guess about 15 years ago, want to cost me

$800 a month, just to put her on, you know, on healthcare so she could have good healthcare. she got social security so we didn't have to worry about that anymore. i want to say this, although i am a democrat, i am against a man marrying another man. i don't want those candidates when they support something like that but marriage is for a man and woman to be married to produce children so that the man can continue on. when a man marchray man, a woman marchray woman, it's immoral, ungodly. they should not be anybody supporting that. out of order. >> from leachfield, kentucky, intend line. nick is next. hello. >> yes. i am originally a democrat. but the reason being is because a we ever see as far as democrat is basically just less than standard. all they do is put these as on what the other one done in the past or is doing.

they never actually talk about what they are doing. they don't spend the money they are in, all in actual things that need to be improved. they just spend it on getting that on what the other person did wrong. first off. second off, why are we always making the actual problems with things like gay marriage or a person's religion? we are looking for a leader of a country, not, you know, a leader of the social media sites. >> that's all anybody ever cares about. >> that's the things they use to blind side us from the actual real issues. >> can you recaller talked about campaign and as. >> our next segment, the committees that fund these events, outside groups, too. talks about campaign, especially one of the forces behind it. the guest is tai matdorf for the senate majority p.a.c. where it

is likely to put money and pull back on ad and support over the next couple of weeks. a little bit of his interview with reporters. >> in michigan, i think we will probably be throttling back some spending there as gary leaders with 1 of the more heralded recruits. >> we know the states that i just mentioned and then, you know, looks like there could be something going on south dakota, which i am assuming we will get to. those six states. >> let's get the south dakota thing. crazy situation. >> are you going going to jump in there? >> we are going to go get iter,dra gather data. when we talk about us as an organization, that's one thing we pride ourselves on is data. it looks like externally some thins will happen. there could be a path.

governor rounds, a lot of people have written it off. here we are three week out. it seems to be tightening up. >> 8. that was sort of the question. >> that's what we are doing now, gathering the research. i would assume in the in connection five days or so we will make whatever decisions we are going to be making. >> news makers on sunday airs at 7:00 o'clock on sunday, 10:00 o'clock in the morning, 7:00 o'clock in the even being on c-span. also listen to it on c-span radio and available at our website at c-span.org. one more call on how you decide upon a political candidate. jean from michigan, democrats line. go ahead. >> hi. i decide based on who follows the teachings of jesus. i feel that the republicans follow the describes and the pharisees whom jesus referred to as hypocrites. you know, i always think about

what senator ted kentucky, who was a democrat, would say often: when you have done to the least of these, you have done it unto me. and for me, as a christian, i feel that the democrats follow the teachings of jesus more. when i was naked, you clothed me. when i was hungry, you fed me. when i was in prison, you visited me. for the widows, you watch after the children. and the republicans based upon the laws they have passed over the years starting for me with reagan, he attacked the unions. the unions built the middle class. bush 1 believed in one world order. he is the one that drafted nafta. sure clinton sighed it into law but it was the republicans who drafted it. it was passed. it was republicans who pushed it. it was cran senator phil gram who pushed for the repeal of

glass ste-steagall which separa the banks from the investment companies. the republicans use religion, abortion, and gay marriage to fool people and to get them to vote for them on moral issues. the laws that they pass are immoral. they are trying to suppress people from voting. women have to answer to god for what they do. it's not up to politicians to pass law. it's more like the taliban. >> jean is the last call we will take on this topic. but we will continue on the topic of political campaigns. up next with millions of dollars being spent on ads by the campaign committees, the congressional campaigns, groups, what have you. we will talk about that money that's being raised and spent with roll call's shira center. later on in the program, we will talk about supreme court this week affecting the way five states handle the topic of gay marriage and what goes on from here.

a discussion on that decision and the consequences will take place later in the program. but as part of our campaign 2014 coverage, we are bringing you highlights from debates that we are taking in on a regular basis with one of the closest governor's raises in the country. domestic violence with a series of recently campaign as. scott walker and democrat challenger mary burk met on friday night for the first of two statewide debates sponsored by president wisconsin broadcasters association. here is a bit of it. >> overall, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. and i am pro-life, but i can only imagine how difficult it is for someone going through that really difficult decision to determine whether they are going to end a pregnancy or thought. >> that's why specifically here in this state, i supported legislation that would increase safety and provide more information to a woman considering her options. >> specific bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor. for the specific requests you made, that issue has been

resolved. that was decided by the united states supreme court more than 40 years ago and that's something that doesn't have bearing directly on this debate. the larger issue about us seeking to protect the health and safety of every wisconsin citizen does. >> i believe it should be up to a woman according to her religious beliefs and in consultation with her family and her doctors to make that decision on her own. when governor walker talks about making these decisions and passing this legislation that stands in the way of women being able to make their own healthcare choices, making politicians in madison the deciders on this is ridiculous. frankly to talk about safety at the same time that you have the customs finding resulted in the closure of five clintons throughout the state of wisconsin that provided needed healthcare such as cancer screening, birth control, and family planning services along with mandating invasive procedures that are against a woman's right to choose, i think

this is absolutely wrong, and i think it should be women who are able to make these choices for themselves. >> governor walker? rebution? >> yeah. we moved it to other like for example the winnebago county health department from one area to the other in areas that are highly respected. we have added funding. we talked about it right on the stage and elsewhere. we increased funding for the university of wisconsin cancer center to help for affiliates across the statute. $15 million more to help victims of domestic violence and child abuse and other issues across the state. when you look at what we are talking about, we have added to that in this last budget in particular. >> thank you. >> governor walker, i think, is trying to have it both ways. he talks about health and safety as if it is pretty reasonable. his position is anything but reasonable. he believes even in extreme cases of rape and incest that that is not a woman's choice, politicians that are deciding that for them.

>> is wrong. tak taking that decision away from women is not something i would do as governor. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us to talk about money and campaign is shira center, the politics editor for "roll call"? >> thank you for having me. >> lots of money in this campaign? >> yes. lots. seems like unlimited sometimes. >> how does it compare to campaigns past? >> a bit of a tick down. the federal election commission came out with a study a few weeks back, wrote a story about it at roll call saying compared to other cycles, a little less in terms of committee fundraising but on the other hand, outside spending, those groups, like americans for prosperity, crawford, super p.a.c., senator p.a.c. >> that has become explosive as anticipated. >> the ones that are sponsored by those on depressed, outside groups are the ones outside of congress. is that easy enough to say? >> yeah.

that's basically it. right. >> as far as money is concerned, how do these groups do in general? hour their intakes going so far? >> actually, democrats on the whole tend to have more prolific fundraising than republicans. sometimes with these congressional committees and it is clear on the on house side. we consider the house to be in play this cycle. but you holds the majority there. the dccc, campaign arm of house democrats has been raking it in all cycle. they have a very, very productive online fundraising program and they have just been beating the nrcc, campaign committee for house republicans, over and over and over again. i say on the senate side, although the discrepancy is not as large, senate republicans tend to have raised more money than, excuse me, senate democrats than senate republicans although in the month of september, the national public committee brought in

$15 million a massive sum. >> there is a story on roll call. using akronics. >> alphabet soup. >> shift resources to 6 states the massive fundraising, they are now using those resources in the field and they are voting to mostly add although it's not clear but probably ad time in six more states. right? a total of i think about over $7 million there and they are sending it to six different states including most notably south dakota and georgia. >> why so? >> so south dakota is interesting because it became a race this week. >> that's retiring senator tim johnson'sseat, a democrat held seat, but democrats failed to recruit a top-tier senate and mike brown was considered a pretty good candidate. so basically, that seat is many ways been in the bag for senate

republicans but larry pressler is messing up, causing a bit of a spoiler in the race. he is a former senator, former republican senator but he veers to the left now. he is a quote, a friend obama if elected. so kind of shook up the entire field. senate democrats this past week went into south dakota and dropped a million dollars an ma that may impact the fundraising, reforms, super pack, went in and spent a million dollars and so senate republicans went in and spent a million dollars. georgia was another interesting case. i can talk about that. >> is a seat that republicans, chambliss is retiring. democrats are very proud of michelle nunn former dollar general ceo, a race that has veered toward republicans and favored in the role call race

ratings right now. poll numbers have come out of there dave perdue made an unfortunate comment as a lot of republicans have grumbled about outsourcing so that's become a little bit more of a race. percentage is, i think it's a stretch. georgia has a unique election system where we might not know the winner until january 6th. >> the committees, by the way, if you want to ask our guest questions about fuch raising process do so on one of the liensz make thoughts known on twitter and facebook as well. for the money that is taken in, where does the money come from on the congressional side from members of congress outside? where does it come from? >> a combination of thing. right? from outside sources, donors,

you know, many of whom are in the big american cities. right? new york, san francisco,bot, that can thing. from downtown. right? if you have business in congress and, you know, height not be a bad idea, you know, to make sure you are investing in the right places. >> k street? >> infamous k street down the road. so, yes. they come from there. also, the president for democrats and he does fundraisers, big names and now to goes to a lot of cities or goes to texas. he will do fundraising but it comes from members. an especially on the house side, this is a big deal because the parties are looking to ask members for their dues. a whole another systemic go in to. >> code word for contributions? >> yes, it is. yes. voluntary contribution, but, you know, so i mean some members refuse to pay. they are like, you never helped me in my race.

why are you saying i owe you 200 granted out of my campaign account every quarter, every cycle rather? but, you know, a lot of democrats especially and republicans especially. they either have to be very active for candidates or they need to transfer a whole lot from their campaign account. >> are there rules when it comes to congressional committees and how much money they can take in? >> there are individual contribution limits. right? differentiate from the super pacs. the other thing is work with candidates. they recruit candidates, train and talk to them, give them staffing support sometimes. so that's in what can makes them different from a super pack. there are fd c, all kind of campaign finance rules to go in to about this with firewalls. at some point in the cycle, drives us crazy as reporters. where a firewall goes up. he specially these committees will transfer mourt million dollar or $50 million to what's

called an independent expenditure unit and they will go and they will do the actual spending of the money and many times, this person is just across the street or sometimes it's on the first floor of the same building but there is a firewall now up between those two organizations as the cam, you know, the dccc or nrcc continues to communicate with the candidates. there is a limit to how much they can financially help the candidates. but they can spend a lot of money. >> united states an obvious question how does is this money get spent in. >> on television, you know, between 75 percent and 90% on television. i would say depending at what point in the cycle. and it's the time of year to be a local broadcast station. >> they make money off of this? >> yes. san francisco, sacramento, tucson, yes. all of these cities with hot races. it's a good time. >> we will show you some of the as as we go throughout the morning if you wouldn't mind to set up the iowa race. we have asked to set up the

irss. the iowa race in the senate? >> this is a true battleground state right now, very much a toss-up state. senator tom harkin is retiring. bruce braley is the democratic arm 19. joni ernst, the republican nominee. initially, democrats are thought to have the upper han the braley made some rhetorical missteps and ernst came out of the primary in a strong position and a 50/50 race. >> the ads from the various campaigns. we will have you look at them. if you are on the line, hold on. we will keep on taking calls. go ahead. >> we have the faith in joni. she is right one. >> i was just absolutely he can static to have her endorsement. those are the types of people that we need in our federal government. >> joni ernst would be another tea party voter. she would privatize social security, cut taxes for millionaires and eliminate the

national minimum wage. too extreme for iowa. the democratic naturetory campaign committee. >> bruce braley is running a dishonest campaign to hid his failed record. he voted for a tax increase making as little as $42,000 a year and voted to allow obama to grissom nesty to make them eligible for tact pair funded benefits. bruce braley's record, higher taxes for i am grants and he is too extreme for i with a. nrcc is responsible for advertising. >> saying both are too extreme? >> way too extreme. three and a half weeks out. it's about going to the middle right? this is something both parties use in their advertising tactics as they try to put each side as

thing. let's take the first call. terri at fairfield, california republican line for shira. go ahead >> caller: thank you for taking my call. earlier on, your guest on the issues, i tell you one of the things that really makes me angry is when liberals and democrats talk about their issues as if they are women's issues. there are a lot of women who are pro-life. they are pro-traditional family. and, you know, i think whenever democrats talk about women's issues, they are really talking about liberal issues. >> guest: the caller has picked up on what has been a huge theme

this cycle until terms of so-called women's issues, single women have become incredibly battleground for votes. we have seen it in colorado especially. we have seen it in a little bit to a lesser extents in virginia. single female voters in northern virginia and both parties are doing whatever they can to fight for this bloc. for democrats t means a lot of television ads i am sure your viewers have seen focusing on issues of choice or abortion. and for republicans, it's much more of an economic message usually. >> >> guest: are you on? >> yeah. i am on. >> go ahead. you are on. >> yeah. my comment is on immigration. host: okay. >> caller: yeah, i believe -- i believe -- hello host: let's go to steven. brooklyn, new york, democrats

line. hello. steven from new york. hello. one more line. next from chicago heights illinois, good morning. how are you guys this morning? >> good. >> i love chicago. >> yes. i am registered a democrat. i have been watching -- i have been watching the elections and on t.v. and i am concerned about the reason the women's democrats are concerned about women's issues, the republicans are trying to take droll like birth control control: it didn't appeal to every day people. they don't want to do anything about unemployment insurance, anything. just a healthy, every day person. there are issues. trying to close abortion

clinics, trying to close planned parenthood and women use these services just for, you know, pap smears, mammograms. you know, female reproductive system. or, you know, their health. >> that's why this election is important. we need to get out and vote because i mean i believe the republicans take the house and the senate, we are in really g bigtribble.

-- fund raising groups than anybody else. and i just thought that was d

disingenuous because he's been hammering the coke brothers on how un-american they are. >> yeah, so, on capitol hill at this point in time, democrats are better fund raisers. i'd be curious where the caller got that comparison because different type types of campaign spending groups report differently. essentially the billion nairs who want to -- or the coke brothers on the right have unlimited funds when it comes to politics. they can report every once in a while to the irs so we have an idea because we have an idea of how much they're spending on these ads. in terms of how much they intend to spend, we have no idea.

but super pacs often brag about their fund raising so we can see their budgets. host: who where the biggest fund raisers? guest: coke. gps on the republican side as well. congressional leadership fund. host: what makes a super pac a super pac guest: you can donate an unlimited amount.

the creation of super pacs meant you could take unlimited donations to spend in these races. host: shira center joining us. paul from tennessee, go ahead. caller: campaign cycle so not what people are giving but the democrats give to the poor. there's an alliance between the poor and the super rich not to

be taxed and taking from the middle class, and they can accomplish that by using the irs to beat down on the middle class. host: economic issues, is that a theme that would arrive. middle class. low income class? >> a little bit. that was more of a bigger theme last cycle in 2012. economics are still huge. they're still without a doubt economic unrest in this country. we still people polling all the time. people are mad at wall street. they hate the idea of billion nair having a lot of money. butillionaire having a lot of

money. but -- we saw it a lot in west virginia, kentucky, states with respect there really is the blue collar mentality that i think democrats always try and make that argument to host: from michigan, anthony up next caller: i just want to make a point from the african american perspective who is not a republican or democrat because i see those parties as two wings of the same bird. right and left. the american eagle flies with both of them. but more to my point is the democratic party has -- you know, black people have always been the pawns between democrats and the republicans.

many started off as republicans in this country and then back room deals, democrats. we're still on the back end of policies, high unemployment rates, police brutality within our community. and we continue to allow ourselves to be a political pawn to support democrats. host: what would you like our guest to address? caller: more so just making a comment host: okay. guest: some democrats are also relying on the african american

vote.

reporters keep running up to the office of public records waiting for the report to come in. the house files electronically and the reports are supposed to be in the night of the due date but it's still a huge issue with transparency. host: marco is from detroit, michigan, republican line. caller: good morning. the trouble we have -- i think

it's better to save money for those people who are in need. guest: i'm sorry to tell you that, that is not an issue that they have talked about on capitol hill eight all recently. paul ryan has sort of been a little out in front on the issue of poverty recently, done a nationwide tour trying to understand urban communities. so there's a few people that are talking about it in terms of actual legislation. i have not seen or heard anything about confronting those things. host: so north carolina a big

state set up and what's going on there guest: yeah. so first republicans need to pick up six seats to have control of the senate and for so long those six seats went to north carolina. it is problematic for him because the legislature in north carolina is fairly conservative and they've had to make some tough decisions that were litigated on the airways while he was in his job. it's very difficult for him.

so far it's the most expensive senate rate and it's because of those three urban markets. a year ago, the coke brothers were spending and it's become very expensive and so far the numbers aren't moving that much.

guest: we had a story this week talking about these committee hearings and these records. they're different from floor votes. it's the armed services committee or judiciary committee. they've become a huge campaign issue. the thing is that senators don't go to these. usually it's staff. in terms of the haigan and the terrorist attack ad as well, the coke brothers, they have invested heavily in this state.

>> you go up to new hampshire and they have a difficult time fund raising up there. just because it's not as much of -- there are not as many wealthy communities especially in other states. especially in the south you get the same thing. it's much more difficult if you're coming from an area with an average income in the 30s or something like that. it's a totally different challenge. they have enough to go outside of their district as a result. host: next caller is from chicago. this is steve caller: good morning. i want to go back to the super pac situation. har harry reid pounds the coke brothers.

get wearily listening to him. guest: yeah, not a fan caller: i go to a website called open secrets that i've found to be quite good. and it's really easy to use and when i look at the top contributors, they're ranked 49th. okay. and i thought it funny because i saw one here that was number two, it's called far l.l.c. and they're number one. so i did a google on them. it turns out it's tom snyder. he founded it. you ask the average citizen who the far group is, they'd say never heard of it. well, they have brought in $20 million so far. and then the top ten, you have

bloomburg, the national education association, the democratic association, the center majority pac host: caller, sounds like you've spent a lot of time looking at this stuff caller: because, you know, it gets redundant for harry reid to say the coke brothers are the evil ones when the top ten contributors are all democratic organizations. host: thanks, caller. appreciate it guest: i would have to look at. specific list to which he's referring. the caller is right in terms of the increased level of participation. tom snyder alone has put so much money in these races but even the league of conservation voters, it was 5 million or something in these races and now it's five times that.

they've expanded their game in the senate race. guest: the president is still did biggest fund raiser in the party. there is no question people will shell out huge amounts of money to go to a fund raiser with the president. he has incredible draw in wealthy liberal cycles. he stopped at gwyneth paltrow's house. but he's not that popular across the country. host: sherry from oklahoma city.

democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm very disturbed at the way this discussion about the super pacs and the way that these pacs get their money from. there's a huge distinction between the people who -- the super pacs for the democratic party. and the coke brothers. they have an agenda. they have done this. they -- this is some debutaunt

ball. this is very serious. people are suffering. host: thank you guest: so no question they're serious players in terms of a lot of these things. how much they spent depends on the state but i do think they will continue to be those players. the last few cycles, they have emerged partly because democrats have started to demonize them and they want to protect their

reputations. they do care about the personal brand throughout america. and they've been generous philanthropists across the country as well. host: have you asked about the coke brothers in terms of shadow groups? guest: yeah. so, shadow groups. so coke brother's money, it is because it doesn't necessarily go through a super pac because of the way they're reporting it's often hard to trace the money. you can trace it by how much they're spending.

>> i'm not going to owe president obama anything on election day. >> i'm not on the ballot this fall, but make no mistake, these policies are on the ballot. these policies are on the ballot. every single one of them.

be that's a very interesting question. so they usually -- i haven't thought about that in a while. i think they usually have to report the interest on their -- when they file. quite frankly, the committees usually announce their fund raising before they file. so that's where we get the numbers as reporters, the press release or something along those lines. but i think in terms of the interest, they probably would keep it. why wouldn't they? host: ed is from greenbelt, maryland caller: good morning.

i am african american. i'm a scientist and have been around the world and speak three languages. let me make my point first because i am very concerned. it will people who can afford the systems like the right wing media, they blast misinformation. we have good people in this country. what i think is dividing this country is this false information, nonfact checked information and these people, like, for example, even republican house -- listen to this broadcast systems and you go across --

>> i can say there are few things more frustrating than talking to voters and asking for their thoughts on candidates and they'll say something back to you and they'll say i've heard that before and it's exactly what you've heard in a campaign ad over and over again and that's frustrating. you cover these campaigns and look at. issues over and over again and you hope some people would take a more critical look sometimes at the campaign adst they hear on television but i would say 90% of the time that doesn't happen. we're in a very partisan country and people can tell if they

agree with a campaign ad this time of year probably by the third second of a 30-second ad. so it is -- it's definitely something. and in terms of the media, it's just something we've seen over the last few years. it's why more people should listen to reliable sources like c-span. host: radio is a component then of the spending guest: radio is a component. in some markets more than others. radio is the best way in alaska to reach voters or when you go to western kansas or something like that, usually huge farm communities, people out on their tractors and they have a radio

and not a television with them. >> tell us what you're watching for the next couple of weeks.

host: coming up, the decision by the supreme court this week will deny appeals from five states when it comes to the topic of same-sex marriage. washington journal continues after this.

host: for the next hour, a

decision by the supreme court that addresses the topic of same-sex marriage. brian brown joins us and ed wilson with the group freedom to marry. he's their founder and president. welcome. let me ask i both right off the bat, exactly what did the supreme court do this week and how do you interpret it in the larger contest of what it means for same-sex marriage? brian brown, you go first. guest: well, the supreme court refused to rule. there were five cases where there was an attempt -- five states attempted to have the lower courts reviewed rulings that favored the redefinition of marriage and i think most people thought, everyone, thought that the court would take at least one of these cases. but instead of taking the cases, the supreme court basically decided not to decide leaving in

place these lower court rulings. the problem with this is that -- host: mr. wilson, your

interpretation? guest: well, as mr. brown just said, not only have there been several appellate court rules in favor of the freedom to marry and saying there's no good reason for denying the freedom to marry, in the last year more than 40 state and federal courts have ruled in favor of the freedom to marry and a few of those cases reached the supreme court and on monday they said we're going to leave these rulings standing and we don't see a problem. and that spent an immediate signal to the rest of the courts around the country that there is no good reason to deny the freedom to marry. there are cases making their way so that we can bring the freedom to marry to all 50 states and

all loving and committed couples. and what's wonderful here, anyone paying attention, states like idaho, north carolina, yesterday, nevada, earlier in the week, utah and oklahoma and other states. what people are seeing is good. people are happy. people are getting married. couples have been together 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years are being able to have that commitment they have made in life respected under the law. and in not one of these states have people used up the marriage licenses. there's plenty of marriage for all americans to share. and what the country is seeing is that the courts are actually catching up to where the american people are. 59% of american people support the freedom to marry now and that's because they've had a chance to talk and follow through. not in scary abstractions but in

terms of families that are going to be stronger and happier. host: host: mr. wilson, would you be okay with a patch work of laws across the country and let the states decide on this issue? guest: no, of course not. we're one country with one constitution. as american we all share the same right to equal protection under the law and when you're married, part of the protections that come with marriage is that when you travel, when you work, when you go from one state to

another to visit your aging parents or see your kids in college, you don't have to worry about whether you're married or not or how you're going to be treated when you're in a certain state. that's not a workable situation. and the supreme court has signalled there's a freedom to marry under the law and there's a constitutional command that protects every single one of us as americans. freedom of religion should not vary from state to state. freedom of speech doesn't vary from state to state and that's why we're going to see the freedom to marry throughout the country which is a good thing just as it was when we got rid of race restrictions in the 60s. guest: it's a slur on the americans who have said marriage is the union between a man and a

woman. if we take evan's argument seriously we believe these people are bigots. what the court did is not overrule or even take the cases that were currently before it. it doesn't mean that the court may not take a future case. so the court has made no decision. it's left intact from horrible decisions. this language that evan is using that somehow there's a freedom to marry, think about what we're being asked to believe. we're being asked to accept that just because courts have said that in 1868 with passage of the 14th amendment that our constitution was changed it's just that no one knew it up until the last ten years. it doesn't matter whether it's one or a hundred federal judges saying it, it is not so. what these judges are doing is

imposing a judicial oligarchy on us. it's absolutely wrong. it's why a number of folks, ted cr cruz, are saying enough is enough. we do need one definition of marriage in this country. it's the truth of what marriage is and it's based upon a man and woman, husband and wife. that's what marriage is in this country and what it has always been in english common law. guest: judges appointed by presidents reagan, bush, george

w. bush as well as democratic presidents, judges appointed by governors who are republican as well as democrat have heard these arguments, looked at the constitution, and have looked at the evidence, and they have also heard arguments from child welfare associations, the american academy of pediatrics, the american medical association and other experts and in more than 40 courts in the last year, state and federal courts, they have rejected these kinds of arguments. on monday, the supreme court said we don't see any problem with what these courts have done and has let those court rulings

stand. >> all right. jim, you're up first. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. thanks for c-span. i want to say about same-sex marriage is not normal. the lord didn't make adam and steve. so there you are. thank you. host: mr. brown. guest: look, again, evan wilson is making this up as he goes along. on one hand he's saying the judges have decided to support my position and, therefore, i'm right. it's like he actually accepts this notion that we live under a judicial oligarchy but then says

the american people are making this decision. the fact is the last poll showed a 5% decrease in support for same-sex marriage.

guest: we give great ideas as americans to the political history in the world. first, in the united states, kings don't rule, the people do. and most things we decide by majority vote. but the other equally important and american idea essential to our idea of constitutional republican democracy is that not everything gets put up to a vote. it's not okay to say that i'm going to vote on whether brian

brown should have freedom of speech or that because we don't like what somebody else says we're going to remove their religious freedom or their right to marry. there are certain rights, basic freedoms and protections that are guaranteed to all of us. and because politicians sometimes get it wrong and even the majority sometimes gets it wrong, there are certain things that our constitution says belong to each individual as precious and important and we have courts to safeguard those constitutional guarantees. that's exactly how america's supposed to work and it's exactly how america is working now and it's a good thing.

guest: most secure and the most affirming possible support that they can have and one of the ways we can support kids is to make sure that their families are supported as well and that's what the freedom to marry does without taking anything away from anyone else host: the call his or her exactly right, it affects all of us, it affects what is taught in our schools. we've seen in place after place after the redefinition of marriage, kids are taught that their kids are bigoted. there are profound

repercussions. the notion that the biological reality that only a man and a woman can naturally create and take care of and be can he beinged to their biological daughter or son, the idea that, that is somehow -- there's no difference between and that of two men and two women, the american people are outraged because they can see clearly there is. evan talks about somehow this notion within the constitution was -- freedom of speech and religion are in our first amendment. they're clearly there. the founding fathers believed and accepted those. not a single one of the founding fathers supported same-sex marriage. so there are a lot of flowery talks points but they're disconnected with history and reality. the claims being made under the

14th amendment there is a right to redefine marriage. that goes right to the 14th amendment. so what you have to do is recreate an entire history, get rid of the real history, the fact that no one ever considered same-sex marriage a possibility and you also can't answer basic questions. is evan opposing the freedom to marry of folks who want to marry more than one person? evan has no means by which to argue that. host: mr. wilson guest: first of all, mr. brown loves to talk about redefining marriage but marriage is not defined by who is denied it. gay people getting married doesn't change marriage or tell you who you must marry. what it means is that gay people are now able to have in 29

states and soon it will be all 50, the same freedom to marry as mr. brown has. mr. brown met somebody he cared for, fell in love with her, she fell in love with him, they built a life together, and they got married. that's exactly what couples like i am able to do now and many others. it doesn't change mr. brown's marriage. doesn't tell him who he has to marriage. doesn't take anything away from anyone else the it means more people can share in what we have which is marriage. and i think mr. brown would even agree that the supreme court has affirmed that there's a freedom to marry in this country.

guest: the initial question i asked him is with all this talk of the freedom to marry, why

does evan not support the freedom of more than one person? all these arguments that it doesn't affect anyone else, for him, there is no reason why you should not have the ability to marry more than one person. host: if you want to respond to that? guest: this is an attempt to change the subject. the subject before the courts in this country is does the government have a good reason to deny to loving and committed gay couples what the government gives of the loving and committed nongay couples the ability to get married under the law. and court after the court and the american people have now come to understand there is no good reason for denying that to gay people. gay people are not saying let's have no rules. let's do anything. they're saying let us have what you have and that's what the american people have come to realize is the right and fair

thing to do. host: we have evan wilson of the group freedom to marry as well as brian brown, the national organization of marriage. the next call, virginia. mark. caller: you keep saying the freedom of marriage. the freedom to marry. again, i look at this as no moral or religious background whatsoever. you cannot tell me that some lesbian or home sexual couple can tell you that we don't mean that we can marry more than one person. how bigoted is that of them.

guest: it's good to hear that there's outrage across the country. that's why i like c-span. it's not filtered through the media's lens of what it wants to project. since the supreme court's non-decision what we have heard is that somehow the american people are over this. what we have heard is absolute outrage. people cannot believe that this is going on. what evan and others want us to do is to have the law essentially say that a square is a circle or a circle is a square. the caller said, gentlemen, you can't redefine marriage. he is absolutely right. we have put forward many logical arguments, clear, rational arguments. it is apparent to anyone that wants to look that there is a distinction between a male and a female, a female and a male and two men or two women and, again,

evan has absolutely proved my point. there is no logical reason by which all of his arguments cannot be used to further deconstruct marriage. host: all right. illinois, frank. go ahead caller: i'd like to make a quick comment. i was an investment advisor for almost 25 years. my question to you is that we made a lot of money. we're paying huge taxes.

how about if i told you that he and i got married under the rules that you're saying, okay, and saved $30,000 each in taxes filing jointly. has anyone ever thought of that possibility? host: go ahead

not to like it and to say he doesn't like it. i support that. but he does not have the right to use the government as a weapon to keep me and the person i've built a life with, the person i've been in love with for 13 years from having the same freedom to marry that he has. host: all right, kansas city, kansas. go ahead caller: i would like to ask mr. brown, my situation is i am a 52-year-old christian woman. in 2003, i found out that my only child, my son, was gay. he's now 30. okay. 2003, i was a life-long republican, switched to democrat because i felt that society was attacking my son when the republicans had come out and said the democrats were going to

legalize gay marriage. prior to finding out my son was gay i had the same belief that others have that this is wrong. i've gone through a long journey myself and know now that jesus loves me and my son. i want to ask mr. brown, him being my only son, i want grandchildren desperately one day. i want him to be in a loving relationship protected by laws and for his children to be accepted and my son be accepted and me be accepting and my society where i felt accepted before i found out he was gay. host: mr. brown guest: we all need to show love and respect for the human dignity to everyone. in any of us is out there and has gay children, there are

plenty of those people who say i love my child as i should but i don't -- it doesn't change my view of what marriage is. that is the essential question. what is marriage. what benefits does it bring to society. and in a marriage -- in the marriage -- what marriage is, the union of a man and woman, is something very different. if you say i want my son to have children. your son cannot have children with a male partner. that is impossible. children from a man and a woman together, there's something unique about this union. americans are not bigots, evan earlier on says, well, i didn't use the term bigot but says it's antigay. it is not antigay for the american people to say marriage is some thing. it has some quality. and, again, evan, when i say that, he says that's antigay but

he's unwilling to say why he will not say four or five or six people. guest: the caller put it beautifully. it is not loving to say to your gay children that you may not have the dream of a life together in which you have found a partner and in which you build a home and a life. it is not loving to say to children that gay couples are raising that somehow their family is not as good. that they should not have the same safety net of protection. that they should be shoved aside as somehow second class or other or lesser. that's not loving. and precisely because the american people have come to understand that we should be loving and the law should respect love and commitment. that's why we're seeing the movement we're seeing in this country. host: all right. dennis from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a catholic and a father of

three and i think this whole discussion should be debated from the point of reason without any reference to religion and as a father i think that obligation to protect my children. science has made no determination whatsoever as to how a child gets an homosexual orientation and i don't want it for my child. i don't think any parent does either given the choice. people should be treated with respect and compassion but presently they have shorter life spans, they're more subject to depression, i forget all the other litany of maladies. the point is we have a right -- we never discuss this issue from the perspective of the impact it's having on heterosexual children so by having a school

system that's so accepting. when 10% of children turn those years where a child might have an homosexual inclination for a period of time, if the schools try to get the kids to come out as home sexuals then they're looked into it for the rest of their life. guest: the schools are not trying to get the kids to do any such thing. i don't know where the caller is getting that. but more importantly, if the caller really is concerned and interested to know what the science is or concerned to know what do the experts, our nations pediatricians, our nation's doctors, not advocates advocates like me, but people who work with kids, if he's interested to know what they think he should research and he'll find out that all of them have submitted

briefs based on their studies and conversations and positions that encourage the freedom to marry, that support the freedom to marry because they've said that's what is good for kids. that the concerns he's raising are false concerns. they're not true. and it's not just these organizations and experts who have said that. all of what they have submitted, this whole mountain of evidence has now been put into more than 40 courts which have reviewed that evidence and have said exactly what i just said. so if the caller is really concerned about what the right answer is from a medical or scientific point of view, the good news is that informs is out there and it's in favor of the freedom to marry. the reason he may be confused is because he keeps hearing from organizations like brian brown, the same talking points that completely ignore that mountain of evidence and that track record of review in more than 40 courts including the united states supreme court last year.

host: mr. brown guest: i made an argument about the nature of marriage. i have not made that argument based on scripture or theology but i've made it upon the fun fundamental reality of marriage.

guest: in january there was a trial in the court of michigan in which everyone had the opportunity they chose to come in with any evidence to support the kind of stuff that mr. brown just said. and the judge heard evidence. he heard evidence from the other psychologists and child welfare organizations. he heard evidence from real parents and ultimately concluded that the arguments mr. brown

keeps trying to make have no evidence to back them up. cannot be defendeded in a court of law under oath. it's easy to say them on tv but when you actually have to back them up and prove them, this court like all the others i just mentioned found that there is no evidence to support that. and in fact ted is on the other side. that judge was an 80-something-year-old judge appointed by ronald reagan. mr. brown dismisses any body of evidence, any mountain of authority, any expert who has anything to say as elite. any judge who is objective and is looking at the evidence and giving both sides a chance, he dismisses as somehow an out of control judge.

caller: if you believe in america you believe in justice for all. what we're doing is deliberately discriminating against a certain group of people and i would like to ask mr. brown, i know that -- i know of several home sexuosex veterans. who are we to say who they can love? guest: of course there are many

gay service members defending the country. there's no debate about that and they have the right to live as they choose in this country but they don't have the right to redefine marriage. this is the central problem here. we keep being asked why not just expand marriage? why don't we call this the freedom to marry? but that's not the question. the question is what is marriage and what are its unique benefits. and marriage by definition must be some thing. traditionally, it's been understood in law up until the last 15 or 20 years even existing supreme court precedent baker v. nelson recognized marriage is based upon the compliment of male and female. once you get rid of this quality of marriage, the other qualitities of marriage like fidelity, based on two people.

even if evan doesn't want to go down the road. i'm saying there actually is no argument if you rid yourself of the complement of male and female. it is the deconstruction of marriage as public policy that is at stake. this fight is going on around the world. 6 million people in france of all places have stood up for marriage being between a man and a woman. this is not some sort of outdated and irrelevant idea. it is a truth that we are the ones that are contradicting. host: mr. wilson guest: well, mr. brown loves to use scary words like deconstruct, redefine, but of

course it's nothing of the kind. it is allowing gay couples to make that same commitment under the law as nongay couples. 19 states embraced the freedom to marry, most of them through the legislatures and the ballot measures and not through the courts. in all those states, gay couples have been marrying. nobody has been harmed. nothing's been deconstructed. there's not been all the cascade of horrors that mr. brown has talked about and the same is true in the 10% of the world's population now living in a country where gay people can share in the freedom of marriage. that is tremendous progress and it also shows we have a long way to go and part of the reason for that is that organizations like mr. brown's are going over to places like russia to work with putin and his team to pass viciously antigay -- you can laugh but you did it, mr. brown.

guest: i travel around the world. of course supporters of marriage of a man and a woman are going to work with our allies around the world to stand in this truth just like supporters of gay marriage are working around the world as well. i've been all over the world standing up for the truth about marriage. host: mr. wilson, respond

guest: well, mr. brown was in russia. people can go and look it up. for something called the world conference of families which called on other countries to accept the same kind of vicious, brutal antigay law that putin's russia just enacted that has launched a wave of thuggery and beating up in the streets and licensing thuggery. mr. brown was part of that conference. guest: his facts are absolutely wrong. we have condemned violence all of the time. all people can look up are evan wilson and the human rights campaign's absolute lies and slurs. host: bonnie from maryland caller: first of all, mr. wilson

is wrong. every time a state votes down the same-sex marriage, the court overturns it. my point is when you see -- what really upsets me is when you see a little 5-year-old boy go to school with bows in his hair. who's teaching them that they don't know if they're a boy or a girl? host: mr. wilson, go ahead guest: the point i made is that before monday just to address this point about the courts, of the 19 states where we had won the freedom to marry, the majority of them were done through legislatures and ballot marriage along side others where the court struck down discrimination. what we have seen is the supreme court has sent a signal and the courts have followed through in striking down these additional

barriers that were put in the constitution to prevent the legislature from talking and debating in order to discriminate against gay people and that's what we've seen as we've grown from 19 to 29 states as of yesterday and soon it will be 35 and we'll continue to work to make sure it's all 50 states. i think the other point you raise is that, look, children in this country come as who they are. we either love them or we don't love them. if we love our children, we want them to be who they are. and we want them to grow up safe and secure and free and affirmed. and it's important as parents that we get that right for all kids and create a safe environment. that's not about whether adults should be able to marry, but that is about what kind of society do we have and what kinds of words and messages are we sending out to tell kids that somehow they're shapeful or bad or evil or wrong or that they'll

be denied the same opportunity to flourish and grow and live free and happy that all of us aspire to and that our country promises. host: all right. next caller caller: i want to ask both panelists why don't we just stick with the idea that only a man and a woman can give birth to another human being? why is it that when two men or two women marry the first thing they want to do is adopt children into their relationship? why aren't they satisfied with just the fact that they cannot have children? why do they seek to raise children in an environment where they know going into it, it's nothing new, they knew before they even got married that they could not have babies. host: mr. brown? guest: well, he puts his finger on the reality that many of

these judges that evan is cheer leading on don't seem to understand that on a basic level there's something different about the union of a man and a woman. that's absolutely true. but again when he points to these judges and points to public opinion, there's a good example right here. he says 19 states, the majority of which passed same-sex marriage through their legislatures or through ballot referendum. he fails to point to the fact that only three actually did it through a vote on the part of the people. what you're pointing your finger at, this basic, clear, commonsense truth that there's something unique and special and important about our most fundamental social institution, marriage, that we have an obligation to stand up and speak for it. that's the reason that all of these talking points, all of these attempts to act as if this

debate is already over are wrong. the debate is not over and the debate is not going to go away. even if the supreme court were to impose same-sex marriage on this country. just like roe v. wade we'll have a decades-long battle to organize and change and get our law to reflect reality that marriage is the union between a man and a woman guest: the american people have already accepted that we won't have a decade's-long battle. but going to the kids, there are hundreds of thousands of kids and up to as many as 2 million who are being raised by gay parents. many of those kids are kids that those parents had either from prior marriages or relationships but they're still the kids' pare parents and families and many of them are where they have adopted

and taken in kids in a foster care system that is broken and what those kids are getting now is love. getting parenting. getting support. getting discipline. getting good families. the law should respect that and support it, not stand in its way. host: the topic of same-sex marriage with two guests who represent both sides of the issue. host: coming up, we're looking at the issue of finances. it was afterthe financial meltdown that congress put in place rules on how wall street conducts business. that's up next.

host: good morning. guest: good morning. host: the center or audit quality. how would you describe it? guest: we're a public policy organization. nonpartisan and we focus on the capital markets and particularly public companies and their auditors. so that's our focus. we view ourselves as queeners and collaborators with all of the important people in the markets. so be it management at companies, ceos, cfos, controllers, investors certainly, board of directors and audit committees. everyone who makes up the

backbone of our capital market host: with the idea of those who audit the companies to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to do and no more than that guest: correct host: what did you do at the sec and how did it lead to what you do now? guest: i was the deputy director of the division of executive management as you mentioned. i was there during a very thank you turbulent time. after that, i went to bank of america for two years and set up their conflicts of interest program. host: your organization put out a survey taking a look at investor confidence but this particularly after the financial meltdown. what were you trying to find out? guest: we'd done the survey since 2007. so every year we ask four key

questions, the confidence that investors have and by investors, it's important to know that we're talking about retail investors. these are men and women on the street. but we've asked them how much confidence do you have in capital markets and markets outside the united states. how much confidence do you have in publically traded companies and how much confidence do you have in publicly traded company's financial statements. we've got eight years of data on that. what's interesting is we started looking at this prior to the financial meltdown and we're now starting to see finally the numbers coming back up near or in some cases records even more than they were prior to the financial crisis. host: investor confidence, financial reforms.

guest: i think it's probably fair to say that some of the news about all the regulation that's going on post financial crisis did, in fact, play into their thinking. s host: do you think the federal government does a good job auditing wall street? guest: having been in washington now for almost 30 years and having worked at the sec during a turbulent time is that any time there's a crisis in the marketplace be it what we saw

during the financial reporting scandals era and massive regulations, it seemed massive at the time after the mutual fund market timing late trading there was a rash of regulation then and certainly now after the financial crisis, and then maybe the job factor kind of acts as a counterbalance. so you always see this period of

regulation. guest:

host: generally if washington passes rules meant for big companies, does it affect small companies adversely? guest: well, i think that one of the things we've all learned over the years is that as our marketplaces become more complex, whether it's complexity because of the size of some of the companies that we have in the united states or because of the global nature of them, we all need to be mindful of does it fit all companies. you know, is it one size fits

all? can you do regulation that is aimed at the largest companies. i think to do that you need to also consider the affects that it's going to have on smaller companies. and i think that jobs that try to do some of that but you also have to think about the unintended consequences. for example, i don't know that you'd want to have rules and regulations that gives information to investors in the larger companies that investors in smaller companies don't get. so i think you have to make sure that regulation is considered across the board whether the impact and then one thing i would like to see and i base this on my years of being a regulator, i would like to see there be some kind of backward look. so we've implemented a new rule or regulation. did it act as it was intended. were there unintended consequences? there has to be under the law a

cost benefit analysis done under major regulation. but we don't really go back after the fact and say how is that working. so that's an idea we might explore as we face some of these more complex issues.

guest: one of which needs to be a financial expert. the auditors themselves with prohibited services they could no longer provide to the companies that they audited. there was the introduction of a regulator where previously there had been self-regulation. now you have the pcaob that o r oversees the audit. so all of those reforms were meant to address the issues that occurred in 2001, 2000. so it wasn't really about

financial reporting. it was a much different type of issue. and so he doesn't really have much to do with that. but i will say if you look at the changes that have occurred over the last eight years, you will see that the confidence levels have remained fairly steady and we do ask investors who they trust the most to look at their interests. so we give them a list of those in the financial markets who are meant to look after their interest and they have chosen public company auditors as the party that they trust the most to look after their interests. so you could argue that, that is indeed an indication that they have. another indicator is that we have a separate study in looking at restatements. so if a company has to restate their financial statement those numbers have gone down significantly over the past ten years. host: south carolina, jim,

hello. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thanks. go ahead caller: isn't don frank in a way a terrible ineffective almost stupid or surly replacement for what should be the --

guest: in my mind it's an issue of share holders. share holder activism and it's come to have this pejorative flavor to it so i don't mean it

in that sense. sometimes disruption isn't bad either. i think what you've seen here is you've had a group of investors that had 8.8% stake in the garden and they flexed their muscles and said we want to not only have our own board of directors i think they had two, but we also want a big voice in selecting the directors that are sitting on board. and so more and more you see investors who are saying we want to have a voice in how this company is run and governed. and so that's the most recent -- probably one of the biggest examples of share holders doing that. i've been to a couple of events over the last few weeks where a topic has been long termism versus short termism. what does it mean to the market -- i don't have an answer -- but what does it mean for the market if you have large institutional investors going in

and out of the company as opposed to those that take a long term view and try to put people that represent their interests on the board. i don't know what the answers to those questions are but we're seeing more and more of this activism going on and certainly that's something that's a big difference between the united states market and the global market. certainly in europe you see investors have many more rights and much more of a voice in how a company is run than you do here in the united states. it's a little less direct than it is in european systems. host: next call, carter from colorado. hello. caller: i'm currently a college student right now, and i'm dealing with a lot of issues financially and i'm kind of stuck in a pit.

caller: i bought a fore closure at the pinellas county courthouse. and known to me at the time they said i didn't do my due diligence that bank of america had actually owned the mortgage and i didn't know this. i've paid off the woman's lien and her hoa fees but not the bank loan. so i said to my lawyer now what do i do because i tried to get out of this and so he said, well, all you can do is move in and wait until they fore close on you. so they didn't want to make me an offer to buy the townhouse. they didn't want to deal with me

at all because i was the third party. so what happened was the bank foreclosed on me and hi to move out and i lost the unit after paying for all her hoa liens. and so i became really interested in mortgage-backed securities so i started investigating. i followed the loan, i had the actual loan number and i went to hud's documentation work site where investors can go in and they can look at the derivative in how they're sold and packages. so i followed the loan and i had that opportunity because it had reached its end state you could say after it was sold so many times. host: so someone who followed this issue guest: well, our system here in the united states whether we're talking about mortgages or securities, investments in public companies, what have you, it's based on disclosure.

. guest: sometimes you have to make these snap decisions how you're going to react. so i don't have have a quick answer for you. hindsight is 20/20. but i do suspect that it was a very turbulent time for

everybody. host: wall street this week guest: that was interesting too. october apparently is the most volatile month if you look over history and we are indeed in october. and as our survey respondents know when we asked them why they don't have trust in markets outside the united states, they cited the instability of those markets and i think this week we saw a lot of movement in china, japan, and europe. those markets were also very volatile so that's that effect that a lot of investors are concerned about. host: only about 12% of people said the economy was improving and the recession was over. guest: they also identified themselves as fairly conservative on that and then a number of investors also mentioned that they were not going to make any further investments in the next 12 months. so i think there is a lot of

uncertainty still in the investor's mind about where our markets are going and whether or not they have finally stabilized. host: next up, john from massachusetts. hi, john. caller: good morning. cindy, what exactly do you do? are you -- do you -- i don't understand what exactly you do and i tell new the context of what i'm talking about. i'm dealing with some issues right now with the security exchange commission and the pclab. the pclab is the enforcement end of oxly and what i've been finding is that the justice department doesn't really have much -- they haven't really actively been prosecuting things of this nature. and my issue arises from a large

beneficial ownership and stake, so a corporation where these beneficial owners with 5% or more of company stock are put in swiss bank accounts and overseas, the romney trust and things like that.

guest: unfortunately i can't give you an answer to that. we deal in policy issues as opposeded to specific regulatory issues and legal issues. it's not within my area of expertise. host: eddie from arkansas. go ahead caller: yes, i have a question for her. how come more investors will invest in the bigger companies instead of the smaller companies. in the town that i live in, it causes the smaller companies to die down and it really hurts the town, i would say, in the smaller towns. it really causes a lot of jobs to go down. what can investors do to kind of, you know, help boost the smaller companies and, you know,

do better? guest: the headlines are usually about the larger companies whether good or bad. but i will say there are over 5,000 companies listed on the new york stock exchange. so if you think about the foreign 100 or the s&p 500, there are many, many, many more companies out there. and so i would just encourage investors to do their due diligence, to read those sec filings we're talking about. because i think there are a lot of good opportunities to invest in smaller companies. and there are always mutual funds in which an investor can invest their dollars whether it's for retirement or children's education or to buy a house or what have you. but there are opportunities out there. so you could always invest in a small mutual fund host: for those in this survey,

do you define them as large investors are hundreds of thousands invested in the stock market and things like that? guest: they were a mix. we wanted to give the main street mom and pop man and woman on the street so in order to qualify, you had to have $10,000 in the market. so we had about 40% of our respondents had between 10 and $100,000 invested and about 40% had $100,000 and up invested and 20% declined to indicate how much they had invested. so it's meant to be the small end investor. not the investors that we just talked about.

host: coming up, we talk politics 2014 campaigns and social media specifically and how it's being used by both sides. aaron samuelson from politico will join us in that discussion.

"washington journal" comes your way tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. we'll see you then.