The following questions and their respective topics were sent to each candidate:
Is a government shutdown ever warranted as a means of achieving policy goals?
- Udall (D) - No. Coloradans want our leaders to work together, not hold the economy and government hostage for political games. The Tea Party government shutdown delayed Colorado's flood recovery, hurt Colorado small businesses, shuttered our national parks, and delayed processing of veterans' disability benefits. Despite the reckless partisanship that led to the shutdown, I was proud to work through the shutdown to reopen the government and secure $770 million for Colorado to rebuild and recover from the floods.
- Gardner (R) - We have a duty to make government work and to implement solutions that address our nation's biggest challenges. The people of Colorado expect competence in their government – that is why I opposed last year's government shutdown from the outset, even when members of my own party criticized me. To prevent the lapse in funding, the House passed multiple measures aimed at keeping the government funded – including a measure that simply asked the United States Senate to work with the House on finding a solution together. The Senate refused to bring this legislation up for a vote. During the shutdown, I worked with a bipartisan group of members to find a way to fund the government and pass a long-term budget, an effort called "An Honest Proposal." I was among a minority of House Republicans to support reopening the government. We cannot let politics distract from some of the most important challenges in this country, including reducing our massive national debt. When Senator Udall was elected to Congress the national debt was just over $5 trillion. Today, it is over $17 trillion thanks to President Obama and Mark Udall's excessive spending. Out of control spending approved by long-time Washington politicians is endangering our future and placing a greater burden on the next generation. I will continue working with Members on both sides of the aisle committed to solutions rooted in fiscal restraint and a less intrusive government. The federal budget, and the spending it contains, is tied directly to our economy. A growing economy means more tax revenue. When coupled with smart spending reductions, this new revenue will help balance the budget and end the cycle of debt that poses a significant threat to our economy and our security. The average household income has declined by over $4,000 in the past five years, hurting Coloradans and families across this country. People are working fewer hours thanks to cutbacks related to Obamacare. And small businesses, the backbone of our economy, aren't hiring because of overly burdensome government regulations. More people are out of the workforce today than in the past 36 years. To get our economy back on track, we must have leaders in the Senate willing to get government out of the way and let America work. My pro-growth economic plan will create jobs, grow salaries, and make it easier to build a successful business and career. We must achieve energy independence, weaning ourselves off of foreign oil. Doing so would create jobs here at home and open up good paying opportunities for American families. Mark Udall opposes the Keystone Pipeline. I believe we should build it. Mark Udall supports higher taxes and increased regulations that make doing business more difficult. I support policies that make the United States competitive, lower taxes on hard working families, and make Washington bureaucrats follow Colorado's lead. And when it comes to job creation, the record is clear. I have been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of my work to champion job creation. Mark Udall's receives a failing grade from these two organizations when it comes to getting our economy growing.
- Shogan (UA) - Simply put, there are virtually no circumstances where a government shutdown is acceptable as a means to achieve a policy outcome. Members of Congress should view such a shutdown as a colossal failure on their part. A shutdown or its threat should never be used for personal reasons. It is unacceptable as a negotiating tool. It should never be used in an attempt to gain political advantage and never be used as a public relations ploy. Upon taking office, Senators and Congressmen affirm an oath to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully carry out the duties of their offices. A government shutdown can only be seen as a major breach of this oath.
- Hammons (UP) - In extreme circumstances, a Government Shutdown can be warranted. Our National Debt is rapidly approaching $18 Trillion, and, in light of our shrinking tax base resulting from the retirement of Baby Boomers, is unsustainable in the long-term. Members of Congress as well as the President should agree to a paycut of a percentage equal to the percentage of any Federal Budget which is funded with borrowed money (i.e., if Congress passes and the President signs a budget 50% funded with borrowing, the President should immediately receive and all Members of Congress after the following election should receive a 50% pay cut effective [unfortunately, the 27th Amendment, as it is worded, doesn't allow for an immediate Congressional pay cut]). To reassure markets spooked by the perennial Debt Ceiling debates (the next Ceiling comes up in 2015) the Debt Ceiling can be permanently waived if Congressional and Presidential pay is permanently tied to Federal borrowing in the same legislation.
- Kent (L) - No. This is a sign of a fractured, partisan and bickering government that cannot even take care of its most basic business, staying open. The American people deserve better.
- Acosta (UA) - Shutdown. Gridlock. Partisan politics. These seem to be related to this question. It's best to resolve the budget and other issues for the common good. If this results in an impasse that causes a shutdown then it may be warranted.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
On balance, has the Affordable Care Act been helpful or harmful? What changes are needed?
- Udall (D) - The Affordable Care Act had a rough start, and that's inexcusable. We must fight to make it work for Colorado, and I've worked to do just that. I insisted that the President work overtime to fix the health insurance marketplace and for Coloradans to be able to keep their health insurance policies, both initiatives that I'm glad got done. I enrolled in the Colorado exchange and I can tell you personally the law isn't perfect, but that we can never go back to a time when the insurance companies could jack up your rates, cut your coverage, pocket your cash and then drop you if you got sick – often leading middle-class families into bankruptcy. Going back to the days when women were charged more than men and when children with asthma were denied coverage is unacceptable. Both parties need to work together to get it right and keep moving forward. That's what Coloradans want and what they deserve.
- Gardner (R) - No one is arguing that we should return to the old, broken system of healthcare. But Senator Udall broke the three primary promises he made when he cast a deciding vote for Obamacare. Senator Udall promised if you liked your healthcare plan you could keep it. This proved to be false (the Lie of the Year according to PolitiFact), as over 340,000 Coloradans had their insurance cancelled. Even worse, Senator Udall later tried to intimidate the Colorado Division of Insurance in hopes they would hide the real number of insurance cancellations. He also promised that people could keep their doctor. Instead, thousands of women and families across Colorado have learned that they cannot keep their doctor. And finally, Mark Udall said that Obamacare would lower the cost of healthcare by $2,500 per family the first year. This is simply not true as costs continue to rise. Colorado has seen a dramatic increase in health insurance premiums in counties throughout our state. Senator Udall and President Obama sold this bill of goods to Coloradans on a string of lies. Mark Udall even campaigned for the Senate in 2008 saying he would vote against a government-sponsored healthcare solution – but he broke his word when he got to Washington, casting a deciding vote on Obamacare. The fact of the matter is we simply cannot afford this unworkable and overreaching law. The cost of our health care system is already unaffordable; health care spending registered at $3.8 trillion as of February 2014 and is predicted to rise to about $5.2 trillion by 2022, nearly 20% of GDP. I believe we must replace Obamacare with reforms that will actually reduce the cost of healthcare and increase the quality of care. I will fight for real healthcare solutions. Such solutions include putting an end to frivolous lawsuits by trial lawyers that drive up the cost of healthcare, and putting in place policies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. I support a common-sense approach to health care reform that allows for the purchase of health insurance across state lines, greater use of Health Savings Accounts, tax relief, and bolstered state high-risk pools. These changes, and more, are what will move health care reform forward in this country, lowering costs for consumers and saving our nation from mountains of debt. Obamacare not only cuts Medicare by more than $700 billion, drives up our debt, cuts healthcare plans we were promised we could keep, and puts the IRS in charge of the Obamacare mandate, it also hurts the economy. Millions of Americans will lose their employer-based health insurance coverage, and hundreds of thousands of people will leave the workforce. Businesses are already reporting they have cut back on hours and hiring because of Obamacare's cost. And thanks to the President bending the rules, the biggest costs are yet to come. And who could forget the nightmare of last year's Obamacare enrollment? Computer crashes, software "glitches", and mass confusion. Now, the new head of healthcare.gov has said this year will be worse, saying that this year will make last year look like the good old days.
- Shogan (UA) - "The ACA (AKA Obamacare) is a fatally flawed program that will not provide the health coverage and health care Americans deserve. In the short run it has at least opened the door to the discussion of real health care solutions, but in the long run its effects will be harmful. Obamacare will be tremendously expensive, resulting in some $2 trillion dollars being added to our Federal debt over the next 10 years. It will also result in as many as 2.5 million people leaving their jobs in order to maintain their health benefits. Most importantly, it will not accomplish its primary purpose, to provide health coverage to all Americans. In 10 years at least 30-40 million Americans will still be without this coverage. Patching the Obamacare system--as suggested by Democrats-- will only worsen the ultimate outcome. Repealing Obamacare--as suggested by Republicans--without a suggested replacement is both impractical and harmful. It must be replaced with a system that will provide health coverage and health care to all. I have a proposal that will establish a two-part system of coverage. The first tier will provide medical coverage to everyone in this country. It will have a dedicated funding stream with some payment from everyone. This cost will be offset by the elimination of several taxes, like the Medicare tax, and cost savings. Employers will be freed from the need to provide coverage to employees, increasing their international competitiveness. In the second part of my proposal, Americans can participate in a robust free market system of supplemental insurance for expanded benefits. Unlike the policies in Obamacare, my supplemental policies would allow purchasers to buy just what they want and need.
- Hammons (UP) - The ACA has been harmful. What we need is a streamlined and simplified Medicare for All with reasonable copays which also takes care of our Veterans not adequately served by the VA system.
- Kent (L) - Harmful. The ACA is not consistent with the principles of American liberty. It is not the government's job to mandate we buy anything, be it health insurance or toaster ovens. America needs to bring doctors and health insurers back into the free market. Doctors need to be able to charge for their services what the market will bear, just like a lawyer or a plumber or any other businessman. Doctors and insurers answerable to a free market of consumers would produce innovation and far lower prices. It's the nature of competition and the basic purpose of a free market.
- Acosta (UA) - Has anyone read all of it? Aren't we forced to buy a product and it is constitutional? Is this all about money and control or is this about healthcare?
Should the government use financial incentives to encourage the growth of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar?
- Udall (D) - Yes, I strongly support efforts to invest in deploying more renewable energy sources and have been a leader when it comes to extending the tax credit for wind energy which supports over 5,000 Colorado jobs. Colorado is leading the country when it comes to responsible energy development and renewable energy is a key part of our best-of-the-above energy approach. By combining wind, solar, clean coal technology, biofuel, hydropower, and clean burning natural gas, we can keep creating good-paying jobs and work to become truly energy independent.
- Gardner (R) - I believe in a true all-of-the-above energy approach and have long supported financial incentives for renewable energy, including the wind production tax credit (PTC). These incentives, however, must be structured in a fiscally responsible manner and ramped down over time as these industries become more competitive. If an industry exists only because of government subsidies, it may be time to rethink the economic model of the industry. From promoting the development of renewable technologies on public lands to voting repeatedly to protect federal funding for renewables research, I will be a Senator who stands up for the entire Colorado energy sector, whether green or traditional. In Congress, I created a bipartisan energy efficiency caucus. Its purpose is to promote energy efficiency policies like Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) that will create thousands of private sector jobs and save the taxpayers as much as $20 billion. My legislation to advance ESPCs has already passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I also support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, an infrastructure project that would create thousands of jobs. Senator Udall has voted against the Keystone Pipeline four times. On Colorado's Western Slope, the President's war on coal has cost sorely needed jobs. Through a responsible energy policy, we can utilize Colorado clean coal to revitalize the Western Slope. I will also oppose attempts in Washington to shut down Colorado's energy industry. With over 120,000 energy jobs in the state, it is an important part of powering our economy. We need a leader who will champion energy independence – not someone beholden to radical special interests.
- Shogan (UA) - Financial incentives for clean, renewable energy sources should be a part of an overall national energy policy. Fossil fuels will remain the most prominent source of energy in the foreseeable future, but we need to make a gradual transition toward clean renewables .Even those who are skeptical about climate change would be foolish to ignore the voices of numerous scientists and not take some prudent measures to move away from energy sources that are limited and threaten the environment. Tax breaks for the use of renewables will offset the hidden costs of fossil fuels (externalities) and level the playing field. Fees from the use of public lands for energy development could be used to fund research and development for all types of energy. Colorado would be well positioned to be a leader in this area, ultimately bringing good paying jobs and boosting the economy.
- Hammons (UP) - Yes, definitely. Colorado in particular can benefit from encouragement of wind and solar.
- Kent (L) - No. The free market should dictate the growth of renewable energy sources. Our government's only obligation is to provide a free market for this to happen in.
- Acosta (UA) - The incentives need to align with the consumer and not just the businesses that sell or repackage solar, wind and biomass energies. When our government built the highway system, one of the outcomes was an incentive for automobiles, fuel and repair stations, travel services, lodging and tourism to mention a few. So the correct incentives work and that is why I would support the choice for Americans to choose or not chose to be a part of the renewable energy. Many people are building self-sustaining homes and using alternative energy to independently heat and power them.
What is the most important policy change needed in immigration reform?
- Udall (D) - Our immigration system is broken, and that's unacceptable. The border must be secure, businesses need certainty to create jobs, and we need to stop ripping families apart. That's why I have championed the DREAM Act so that children who have known no other home than America can go to college or serve their country as part of an earned path to citizenship. It's also why I am proud to have worked to pass a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate. This landmark package of reforms was supported by business, labor, immigration groups, farmers, and ranchers. Unfortunately, radicals in the House of Representatives, including some members of Congress from Colorado, have blocked efforts to even have a vote on the widely supported bill. It's time for the House to put aside partisanship and have an up-or-down vote so we can fix our broken immigration system and stop tearing families and communities apart.
- Gardner (R) - I firmly believe our immigration system is broken and badly in need of reform. That process should begin with border security measures and a guest worker program. We cannot have a secure border in this country without a functional guest worker program.
- Shogan (UA) - The most important change needed is the creation of a comprehensive policy dealing with immigration. This must involve securing our borders to avoid a crisis which is never ending. It should also involve, however, a pathway to citizenship for long term undocumented residents. Deportation of all of the estimated 12 million people here illegally is neither just nor practical. Securing the borders will involve physical and electronic patrols but will also require policies to decrease the incentives for illegal entry. Rapid adjudication and return of those entering illegally is necessary as is enforcement of penalties for the hiring of those in the country illegally. Cooperative programs with the governments from the countries of origin should also be sought. The pathway to citizenship should be offered to those who have lived and worked productively within the United States for several years without having violated any other laws. Some type of penalty, such as a fine or public service could be required to offset the immigration law violation. Progress toward competency in the English language and basic American civics and history testing should also be required.
- Hammons (UP) - We need to more adequately secure the Southern border and make it crystal clear to those attempting to cross that border that we will enforce our laws.
- Kent (L) - First, we must make it easier for people to enter this country legally. Second, we must make it possible for the 12 million people that are here illegally to live and work here legally. They are not entitled to citizenship, however. This is not fair to those who immigrated legally. However, this nation has always benefited from the immigrant's work ethic and it is not in anybody's best interest to keep them criminals when their only crime is crossing a border.
- Acosta (UA) - Our immigration polices worked fine up until the last decade. How did we get to this point? We need to look at what worked before.
Do you support the nationwide legalization of marijuana?
- Udall (D) - I want to carefully watch what happens here in Colorado. That said, I believe the federal government should support our state's regulatory framework. That's why I pressed the Administration to provide guidance and clarification for our local businesses who seek to follow all applicable laws and regulation related to the sale of marijuana. I will continue to push the Administration to ensure that federal red tape and bureaucracy don't impair Colorado's ability to enforce and execute our laws.
- Gardner (R) - While I did not support the ballot measure when it passed here in Colorado, the voters have spoken. Our Founders intended for the states to be laboratories of democracy, and Colorado is deep in the heart of the laboratory. I hope that other states will watch and see what happens here before they follow and pursue it. I have supported legislation to make it easier for banks to work with companies involved in the marijuana industry. I am also a strong supporter of industrial hemp and support its nationwide legalization.
- Shogan (UA) - I believe that the legalization of marijuana should be left to the individual states. The federal government should then decriminalize the possession and sale of marijuana within the bounds needed to reasonably facilitate this. Banking and business regulations should reflect this decriminalization. Colorado has already spoken as to its preference.
- Hammons (UP) – Yes.
- Kent (L) - "Yes. I do not support government regulation and taxation, however. The government should merely eliminate the penalties for its production, sale and use. Now, I do not smoke weed, nor do I particularly enjoy being around those who do, but what citizens do in the privacy of their own should not be subject to government regulations.
- Acosta (UA) - I support the legalization of medical marijuana that is proscribed by licensed Doctors. Conversely, I may support a less-punitive classification of Marijuana in general and also would like to discuss decriminalization of 1oz possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Further discussion should include the related subject of American youth in prison on drug-related charges. "In the land of the free," do you know how many Americans are in prison for drug use and possession of even small amounts?
Should same-sex marriage be legal?
- Udall (D) - Absolutely. I have long been a champion of protecting equal rights for Coloradans no matter whom they love or how they choose to raise their family. I was proud to lead the fight to repeal the military's discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and have fought to ensure gays and lesbians receive equal treatment when it comes to Social Security and veterans benefits.
- Gardner (R) - I personally believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman. But this issue is now in the hands of the appellate courts and not the U.S. Senate or any legislature and we should all honor that legal process and treat each other with dignity and respect. While others might seek to divide Coloradans, I will not do that. Coloradans are tired of politicians who spend all their time on partisan hot-button issues that divide our state. We need leaders who are focused on bringing people together on the economic issues that we all agree on. Our nation is in real economic trouble and that's what my campaign is all about. Shogan (UA) – Simply, yes.
- Hammons (UP) – Yes.
- Kent (L) - Yes. We are a nation conceived in liberty and we must extend every liberty to every citizen. This is the basic proposition of the United States as I have always understood it. This includes the right for gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same gender. Those who object to gay marriage on moral or religious grounds are not obligated to gay marry. Just because something is legal does not make it mandatory. And, honestly, a hundred years now, after gays have been marrying legally for decades, Americans will look back on this time and think we were being petty and vindictive and backward for not allowing it.
- Acosta (UA) - No. Isn't this question interesting though? For thousands of years, marriage is an institution of societies and is not a social experiment. If homosexual unions are in need of legal benefits shared by heterosexual married couples, a civil union may answer that concern (still, even the legal benefits need to be looked at under the lens of the common good for American children and our society). If, however, the goal is to redefine marriage, I am against this as it unravels the fabric of society and does not promote the common good of our Nation.
Are more restrictions needed on the ability of intelligence agencies to monitor the communications of US citizens?
- Udall (D) - As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I believe in a tough but smart national security policy that ensures our national security while respecting our constitutional rights and freedoms. I take a back seat to no one when it comes to defending our right to privacy against overreach by the National Security Agency. That's why, years before the issue gained international attention, I sounded the alarm on overbroad NSA surveillance and fought the Obama administration to make sure they respected our constitutional rights to privacy. That's also why I voted against the PATRIOT Act and introduced landmark legislation to protect our right to privacy from government overreach. Coloradans know that at the heart of liberty is the freedom to be left alone, and I won't stop fighting for our right to live life on our own terms.
- Gardner (R) - The federal government has improperly breached privacy many times, including the IRS targeting citizens for their political beliefs and the NSA's unwarranted surveillance. I strongly support restrictions on these overreaches and voted in favor of the Amash Amendment to end the NSA's bulk data collection and surveillance on Americans. I also cosponsored the USA FREEDOM Act that would significantly reform our country's national security apparatus—when this legislation was stripped of its strongest reforms by Congressional leadership and brought to the floor as a weak bill I joined a small minority to oppose its passage. While Senator Udall talks about protecting privacy, he has failed to protect the citizens of this country from an overreaching IRS that investigated people for their political beliefs. In fact, Senator Udall was silent when his colleagues in the Senate urged the IRS to pursue people based on their own beliefs. This is a clear abuse of power and privacy by the IRS. The EPA must also be brought under control – as a result of privacy violations at the EPA, farmers and ranchers around the country had private identification information revealed and yet Senator Udall did nothing.
- Shogan (UA) - I believe more restrictions are needed, and the government should face a high burden of justification when requesting permission to monitor the communications of U.S. citizens. I would favor expanded judicial oversight in this area to protect the rights of Americans. A warrant for surveillance should virtually always be obtained before taking any action. I believe this can be accomplished securely and rapidly in almost all circumstances where it is necessary. The erosion of our rights would make government intervention more dangerous to our country than the terrorist threat.
- Hammons (UP) - Yes. The recent and current activities of Intelligence agencies are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- Kent (L) - Restrictions are not enough. Only full prohibition will suffice.
- Acosta (UA) - This is a general question as well and to answer in general: Our government has the duty to protect the population and it also has the duty to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The caution to modern societies is the suspicion of the citizens by their own government. Haven't we seen what this has brought in the past? Recall the sad lessons of Stalin Russia, Nazi Germany, and Pol Pot Cambodia. Therefore, we need to keep secure and free at the same time and restrict those agencies that would rob us of one of these to keep the other….
Do you support new restrictions on the sale or possession of firearms?
- Udall (D) - Responsible gun ownership is part of our Western heritage and I have always supported this through my work to expand public shooting ranges and my successful efforts to stop an over-broad weapons ban that would have outlawed common hunting rifles. Commonsense gun laws are needed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and to protect the rights of law abiding gun owners. That's why I voted for background checks to make sure that violent criminals don't slip through the cracks to threaten our communities. Here in Colorado, background checks stopped 72 criminals from buying a gun last year.
- Gardner (R) - One of our most basic and fundamental Constitutional rights is the right to bear arms. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and am committed to maintaining these freedoms set forth by our nation's Founders. We do not need new restrictions. Senator Udall has consistently violated our 2nd Amendment rights. He voted for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, which I strongly oppose, and he supports more restrictive magazine limits than the law passed in Colorado that led to the recall of two state legislators.
- Shogan (UA) - I will not go to Washington with an agenda to weaken the Second Amendment. Gun violence is the problem that needs to be addressed. Many legal tools already exist to begin to tackle that problem, and these laws should be more strictly enforced. This includes harsher penalties for the use of a gun in connection with a crime, for illegal possession or sale of a gun, and for obtaining a gun under false pretenses. Resources should be directed toward the study of gun violence so effective programmatic decisions can be made. If clear-cut evidence of causes and the means of prevention of gun violence can be found, new legislation can then be introduced. This is an area where philanthropy and government could work together well to facilitate research. In addition, our mental health system should be greatly strengthened. This relates not just to gun violence but the long standing under funding of this entire area of health care.
- Hammons (UP) – No.
- Kent (L) - No. I support our Second Amendment rights without qualification or restriction. I support them with the same enthusiasm with which I support our First Amendment rights. We do not need to take a government class or obtain a government permit to exercise our First Amendment rights, nor do we allow infringement on these rights. Why do we allow them with our Second Amendment rights?
- Acosta (UA) - Gun ownership, per our constitution, ensures the populace from being taken over by its own government or an enemy, and this is good.
On abortion, do you consider yourself generally "pro-life" or "pro-choice?"
- Udall (D) - I respect Colorado women and trust them to make the best decisions for themselves and their families. That's why I support protecting and expanding access to affordable birth control and preventive care, and will always protect women's right to make their own decisions when it comes to these deeply personal matters.
- Gardner (R) - Pro-life
- Shogan (UA) - As a physician, I believe that a woman's decisions regarding her health care, including reproductive choices, should be hers alone in consultation with her doctor. Abortion, however, is generally a tragedy for all involved. Emphasis should be placed on programs that make fewer abortions necessary. This includes educational programs and counseling, as well as enhanced access to birth control.
- Hammons (UP) – Pro-Choice.
- Kent (L) - I am in favor of keeping the government out of the abortion debate. There are two reasons to criminalize abortion. One is to eliminate it and the other is to provide penalties for having or performing one. If you are looking to provide penalties for having one, you are punishing people for making a personal choice. Now, you may not like this choice and it may not be the one you would make, however it is not the government's responsibility to take this choice away. If you are looking to eliminate abortion, good luck. Us humans have been terminating pregnancies for over three thousand years. This does not make it right or wrong, but it does illustrate it is not going to go away.
- Acosta (UA) - I think it is interesting that this question doesn't acknowledge the little person being talked about. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling is poor in the same vein of Dred Scott v. Sandford and it's polarizing to the American people. I support Rand Paul's efforts to use medical science showing that a fetus is one of the smallest of persons and thus should be protected under the Bill of Rights. What do you think?
(KUSA-TV © 2014 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)