The two-term member of Congress put Barrett on the hot-seat by asking whether he believed Joe Biden won the 2020 election, if he would have certified the election and if Amazon executive chairman Jeff Bezos should "pay zero" in taxes.
Barrett tried to get around the first question by saying Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson "injected elements of risk" into the voting system by not having a substantive signature verification system for mailed-in absentee ballots.
"I'm not talking about Jocelyn Benson," Slotkin interjected.
Barrett marched through the interruption by saying Benson suddenly became a stickler on signatures when her Bureau of Elections tossed five gubernatorial candidates off the ballot for invalid signatures. He then talked the need for mandatory paper ballots and a bill to require photo ID from a voter before his or her ballot is counted.
"I recommend we go to the next question because he can't seem to answer very basic questions about the election," Slotkin said, to which Barrett said he did answer that he would have voted to certify the election, but only after a rigorous debate on relevant voting issue.
On the Bezos question, Barrett said he didn't think any company should be paying an unfair tax rate, to which Slotkin interrupted, "Is 0% unfair?"
"I think 0% is unfair," Barrett conceded.
"Great," she said.
"But what I don't think is fair is the transfer of wealth from working people to private corporations," he said.
The second debate in the politically competitive 7th Congressional District on WLNS-6 was an hour-long, no rules format hosted by senior capital correspondent Tim SKUBICK, who had no trouble asking questions that generated spirited responses.
Tensions ran high when the subject of her renting her new Lansing residence from Niowave government relations director Jerry Hollister came up. The political attack that's been used against the Democratic member of Congress is a rhetorical question about whether Slotkin and Hollister are living together since they are both registered to vote at the same address.
"Just answer the question. Do you believe that I'm living with another man other than my husband? Because, if so, we'd love to have a conversation out in the parking lot after the debate," Slotkin said.
"I'm not stating anything other than what the record suggests, which is that you're renting a residence from a lobbyist," said Barrett, adding that Hollister's LLC is also registered at the residence.
"My living situation is far less complicated," Barrett said. "I live at a home in Charlotte with my wife and kids. I'm not renting from anybody, and I'm not advocating for any lobbyists for their particular company."
Skubick commended the two candidates for agreeing to a televised debate; however, the station's presentation was distracting to the viewer. Instead of positioning the moderator between the two candidates or in front of them, Skubick was put off to their far right, so Barrett's profile was showing 90% of the debate.
Also, the broadcast suffered from distracting muffled audio noise from beginning to end. The debate sounded as if it was being held outside with a stiff breeze blowing through or someone was sitting on a hot mic and then shuffling in their seat.
As for the substance, Slotkin corrected Barrett a couple times on specific legislation regarding the Inflation Reduction Act and on other legislation that bans members of Congress from selling specific stocks that they could have inside information on.
Slotkin said Barrett should co-sponsor a bill she introduced to ban "insider trading" among members of Congress, to which Barrett returned, "I can't co-sponsor a bill if I'm not there."
Barrett took a dig at Slotkin for moving into the district to run in MI-7. Slotkin returned that Barrett didn't support the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission because it prevented him and his Republican caucus mates to draw "gerrymandered" district lines that benefited them.
Despite the heated and animated exchange, the two said they respected one another for their service to the country.
