the question whether in setting federal labor relations policy through an athlon of the n r a congress intended to deprive the states of their sovereign right to determine how to spend their grant and program money from the state treasury it's for a public purpose then it is expended for public purposes and when it's expended it loses its character right so in the hands of the vendor of the state the state long as i have given the state the consideration that it bargained for correct except your honor and in the case of ransom programs we're not talking about a traditional business transaction where report or providing nurses on wards whatever maybe once that's done and i have my profit from it if i am a profit agency or if i'm program makes a big difference correct we actually just use that there's a profit made off of grants and programs there is no evidence in the record that anyone work that coming from is obviously coming from where these are contributions or where they do work for the state if they do work for the state doesn't some of that money accrue to provide a fun the pay for the once regulations which is being prom correct i mean i think normal you know operating expenses are going to be allowable overhead lighting is going to be allowable and perhaps you know lunching to take the board of directors al are not going to course of putting strings on dollars for particular use it creates a regime where the employers at risk of having to do battle to account for how it actually use the funds to source the funds and that creates a regime where now there's going to be litigation with potential substantial channel to put the employer at risk and in the way to avoid that risk is simply to withdraw from the field of taking positions in the representational auction even though it may be adversus interests of the silent but at the risk of having to say something and buying a lawsuit it doesn't say anything and anyone in one sense they to help clarify that problem that employers have with determining whether or not these are necessary expenditures to carry out the program or grant the legislature is actually helping al the employer in the certainly suspect by telling them these types of costs are not i not necessary lobbying your employees are not  defamation laws except to the extent the employer who wants to bring a lawsuit for defamation can lead a very high standard now that creates a model in which you can have a hotly contested election and the employer sues the union for having a framed the employer in the context of this representational action and the court  defamation where those are the high standard of malice and so on and so forth i'm unclear why why is that not parallel to this situation where the state  control which is the use of its own money this is the state or the legal institutions of the state can carve out and say there's some constraints within the selection process and that is you can engage in defamation either i mean is are you is your argument that the n r a makes the election process sacrosanct the state can't impose any kind of regulation or constraint on what goes on and i'm stuck on i'm representing while you have a very very strong first amendment right to lobby the government doesn't have to subsidize your lobbying activity and the argument was actually made in reading about burton and and shell the nonprofit organization federal restrictions  protected activity no i wouldn't say it's irrelevant but i would say it's not an issue to be dealt with on a potential challenge to the statute it's a hypothetical about how the state courts might apply the statute and you can't presume the statue not before the court which might be broader than the ones the court has before it now and i would agree with that but the court has he points he still faces a challenge to the well i think it's a facial challenge to these provisions of th so i don't think the court has to reach out and decide the validity of those provisions and in fact the reason that they didn't come up on appeal now is that there was an issue about standing for challenge with the character of the parties  response was that the indigency that made it difficult for these women's what's hanging medical care wasn't caused by the state restriction and it's the same here with  state in taxes now i don't think we're dealing with business transactions here at all i don't think we're dealing with the state buying and getting something in return well if the employer pays wages then i think it's the employees are still state money in their hands and they get any kind of organizing effort within the within the entity subject organization right now i wouldn't agree with that the statute the state money prohibits that now i disagree that the employer would have to prohibit that  the first contractor but i just want to make clear that we're not talking about contracts or business transactions when the safeguards the grant of one hundred thousand dollars to run the legal services programs they're entitled to buy one hundred thousand dollars worth of  state of california saying we have conditions if you want to grant from us we have conditions on how you use that money part of it is that we're looking at two separate statutes one of which is not before the court the second we are looking at the conditions have the medicare california medical statute which imposes conditions on reimbursement of an employer so for example if they are providing not providing the services that they promised to provide under the contract the but what i still don't quite understand what your theory is that says that the state ten knots put restrictions on how it's money is spent because the argument as i understand from the employer for years is that this is putting a burden on us to account for money this is going to intrude into this robust debate we're going to be subject to harassment along like what is the problem with simply saying set up your accounts you're subject to challenges under a variety of other circumstances where you have to count the use of the money i don't see the problem here not sure i see the use the money to advocate within the process for against right or to suspend any fashion or s s r i so what it's saying therefore is that you cannot put your money into the process you're free if you want to take your own money your private money you can advance your points of view it's not the state in other words is not compelling the employer to take or not take a point of view with its with the state money of employers and those employers that are covered by the national labor relations act and has been recognized and  there are there are all of these arguments that you advance which indicate what can happen if this case if this law is allowed to go into effect and yet what's the record who are we dealing with here just because basically what it translates into is i see it is that you're saying because the n r a as you say on this continuum as you describe cars out of free zone here in this trenches in the arguments that you're making about the impact in the difficulty of segregating monies in the chilling effect we should conclude that this statute cannot be applied to any employer expressly prohibited under the terms of the statute and there's just absolutely no way that any employer can engage in specific activities that engage or involve a union in any way and i'm asking this because there is an exception this or not as to certain activities that are specifically exempted from the statute which would seem to be a pretty broad base such as addressing your grievance negotiating  area the labor board has indicated that they have set up an entire comprehensive scheme of elections that are interfered with by this statute because of certain ground rules which they impose their impacted upon the federal statute that limits the discretion of the r v in that area that's correct so that's the that that is the key distinction here there's the m r e there national labor policy and fountain of youth cases that there was you know i think gesturing that that fountain feel had private funds that it could have used you know order to responded to the attorney general's request for an accounting the attorney general would not have filed the action asking the court to order them to turn over the records so that he could see whether or not th and i borrow five hundred thousand dollars through the labor election this coming up so that none of the state funds that all the payments to the lawyers and operatives come from the bank long gone or pay directly to the that and are you know under these provisions state money could not be used to repay that happening constant of two years from now  times unfair labor practice offenders that that's not the case here there's no penalty for violating the an alarming that the state ok i think that's about it i'll give you one minute