This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on June 18, 2015.  This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.

>> Test. 
>> Welcome.
We apologize for the brief delay in starting the meeting.
Open meeting of the Federal Election Commission for Thursday, June 18th, 2015.
And it will now come to order.
I understand there some requests for personal privilege.
We will put those at the bottom of the open agenda, please.
>> Madam Chair -- 
>> Yes, at the end of the agenda we will do it.
>> It involves an important matter of importance to the agency.
We have had a death in the agency.
>> I understand.
There are several people who have requested it.
I would like to get to the business and then we will do those matters without question Commissioner Goodman.
We will do them all.
This is on late submitted documents.
We have an additional agenda item and late-submitted document this morning.
Mr. Vice Chair, do you have a motion?
>> I move that we suspend the rules on the timely submissions of agenda document to consider document number 15-33-A, and 15-29B. 
>> Okay.
The Vice Chairman has so moved.
Are there any comments, questions with regard to that motion?
Hearing -- madam secretary you have that motion.
Hearing none, all of those in favor please indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of Ayes] 
>> The motion passed unanimously.
We have a late submitted document that was not included, 1533 -- or was it?
They were both included together?
>> Yes, they were.
>> All right.
Thank you very much.
Sorry.
>> No problem.
>> I have the wrong -- item number one, first item on the agenda is correction and approval of the minutes.
Do you have a motion, Mr. Vice Chair?
>> Yes, I move approval of the minutes for the meeting on May 21st, 2015, agenda 15-32-A.
>> Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> That motion passes unanimously.
Did you do -- was that -- Vice Chair's motion to include adding an item to the agenda as well?
>> No, so far only the motion for the two late documents.
>> That was my confusion.
I'm sorry, Mr. Vice Chair.
Could you add the motion with respect to adding an item to the agenda that was not previously on the agenda?
>> Be happy to.
Move that the commission add to the agenda consideration of the motion to authorize publication of and expenses for 40 year report, 11 C.F.R., 2.7 D, no early public announcement was possible.
>> Thank you.
Comments or questions regarding the motion?
All of those in favor please indicate by saying aye?
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> Madam secretary, that passes unanimously.
Thank you. 
Item number II is the draft advisory opinion 2015-1, Green Rainbow Party.
We have, I believe, Tom Buckley -- 
>> We're not aware of anyone from the Green Rainbow Party who is with us.
>> Good morning.
15-30-A contains a draft advisory opinion responding to a request from the Green Rainbow Party asking the commission whether it qualifies as a state political party.
Draft concludes having met all of the criteria, Green Rainbow Party, state party committee of the Green Party of the United States.
Qualifies as a political party, second Green Rainbow Party is part of the official structure of the Green Party of the United States.
Green Rainbow Party is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Green Party of the United States state level of Massachusetts.
We received no comments on the request or the draft.
>> Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments with regard to this matter?
Okay.
Hearing none, and there is no one in the audience from the Green Party that's present.
Hearing none then, is there a motion?
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Madam Chair, I move that we approve agenda document 15-30-A, advisory opinion request, 2015-01 relating to the Green Rainbow Party.
And this is -- there are no other drafts.
Also known as draft A.
>> Okay.
Any comments, questions about the motion?
Hearing none.
All of those in favor please indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> Madam secretary, that motion passes unanimously.
Thank you. 
Next item is item number 3, notice of availability and petition for rulemaking on independent spending by corporations, labor organizations, foreign nationals, and certain political committees, which was filed by myself and commissioner Weintraub.
We have with us Adav Noti from the Office of General Counsel.
Thank you.
>> Good morning commissioners.
Before you agenda document 1531-A, draft notice of availability and response to petition for rulemaking submitted by two members of the commission.
Petition asks the Commission --
four areas, disclosure of financing information regarding independent expenditures, two election related spending by foreign nationals, solicitations of corporate and labor organizations employees and members, independence of expenditures -- the draft notice would establish a 60-day period for public comments.
If the commission approves the notice -- thank you.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Mr. Noti.
To clarify, what we have before us today is approval of the notice, is that correct?
>> Correct.
>> Thank you. 
Are there any other questions or comments for Mr. Noti by the commissioners?
Hearing none, I do have a comment about the petition.
It is sort of well-known that we're at a critical time for campaign finance in this country.
And, so, you know, I believe that FEC's obligation in our democratic process is more significant now than it ever has been.
We know that a vast majority of citizens of every political viewpoint have deep concerns about the state of campaign finance and its impact on our democracy and sadly, even more sadly, there is a documents loss of public confidence in our institutions of government.
This agency, which is primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing campaign finance laws must be at least a participant in, or ideally a leader in restoring public trust in political institutions.
In Citizens United, Supreme Court recognized that democracy is premised on responsiveness, and that people should have the ability to influence our government.
The work of the FEC must be informed by the views of the public.
We violate public trust if we make insular decisions or those that are only on behalf of certain insiders.
The petition before us today and the notice in particular, is solely to allow people to comment directly to the Commission about issues of great importance to everyone in this country.
It's a very small step that we're taking today, but it's a mandatory one under the law to make our agency more accountable and more responsive to the people that we serve.
So, I would urge you all not to go beyond what all of the Commissioners have done in the past, routine way of agree on sending these notices to the Federal Register.
Thank you.
Any other comment?
Commissioner Weintraub.
>> Thank you, Chair Ravel.
I agree with everything you just said.
There has been comment about this is an unusual thing for commissioners to do, but it is not actually unusual at all for Commissioners to try to put policy items and to advocate for those positions.
The agenda today is filled with proposals from one commissioner to another.
Next item on the agenda something that I put on, and a couple from Commissioner Goodman, and one from Commissioner Walther, so it is the only way policy changes around here is when Commissioners take it upon themselves to try to move an issue forward.
And this is in some ways an unusual technique for doing so, but in other ways, it's very much in keeping with the long tradition of how things get done around here.
I also believe that we have a very important obligation to the public.
I am a public servant.
That means I serve the public.
The American people are my only client.
We earlier this year when we put out the advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the McCutcheon decision, got tens of thousands of comments.
And three-quarters of them said we should do something about disclosure.
We should enhance our disclosure rules.
At the last meeting I made a motion that we open a rulemaking to do that and it did not pass.
And I got the sense at that meeting that some of the colleagues didn't really trust the comments that we got.
A week later, they thought somehow it was ginned up by particular groups with particular points of views.
A week later a poll in -- 
conducted by the "New York Times" and CBS news, and they found strikingly the exact statistic.
Three quarters of the people they talked to yes, we want to see better disclosure by the outside spending groups.
I don't think that the comments that we got were an anomaly.
And that was just on one issue.
We have, the Chairman and I have in our petition raised four issues.
Three of them have not gone out for public comment previously.
They are issues that we believe can be addressed consistent with current statute and current Supreme Court doctrine.
We recognize we can't change the law.
Believe me, if I could rewrite the entire campaign finance system as 85% of the public in response to the poll said they wanted to see the entire campaign system fundamentally changed or completely rewritten, if I could start from scratch, I would have a much broader agenda, but this is what I think we can do.
And what I think we should do to fulfill our obligations to the public.
We've had super PACs since 2010, when they first came on the scene, some commentators said maybe you ought to wait a while and see how this is going to shake out.
But we have had five years of experience now.
I think we can see that they are playing a major role in politics and that's fine, that's their constitutional right.
But it's kind of odd that five years out we have nothing on the books that even acknowledges their existence.
And I think that a lot of people out there are scratching their heads about what's going on out there in the world with these groups by definition have to be independent of candidates and party committees and whether that's what's really going on. 
When corporations were empowered in the citizens united decision, I think it raised issues as to who is going to speak for corporations.
Who is going to be perhaps mandated to speak as part of corporate speech because corporations don't actually have -- and who -- who makes the decisions as to what speech is going to come from corporations given that some corporations are -- all corporations are owned by somebody.
Some corporations are owned by foreigners and our rules don't really address this in the post citizens united world.
I think there are a lot of issues that we can tackle and that people would like to see our tackle.
I believe that the American people would like to see some action on this, and I certainly -- maybe I will be wrong.
Maybe comments will come in and they will say forget about it.
All of those other polls and comments, don't listen to them.
Listen to us.
You shouldn't do anything at all.
It is all perfect exactly the way it is.
I don't think we will get a lot of comments that say it is all perfect exactly the way it is, but we could.
That's really all putting the notice in the federal register will do is provide for further debate.
Debate is good.
Debate is healthy.
And debate shouldn't take place just among six people sitting up here.
It should take place with everyone in the country.
It is their democracy, it not ours.
So, I am enthusiastic about this effort.
I know some people have concerns about our going down this path, but the nice thing about this notice of availability is that it doesn't require anybody to agree with us on any of the issues in order to just follow the rules that say that when somebody submits a petition, we put it in the federal register, and we publish it and we put it out for comment.
So, believe me, I will not misconstrue anybody's vote to put the notice of availability in the federal register for any sign of agreement for any of the propositions that are in the attached petition.
Nobody is going to be confused about that.
I think under our regulations, it is a pro forma step to publish the notice and I hope we will be able to do that. 
>> Are there other comments? 
Mr. Vice Chair, thank you.
>> Thank you, madam Chair.
My question is not necessarily about the substance or anything regarding the petition, but rather about the procedure itself.
As my colleague pointed out this is an unusual situation where a commissioner -- invokes the petition process in -- and just a -- 200.2-A, any interested person may file with the -- written petition or appeal of a rule implementing any of the following statutes and it includes the federal election campaign act.
The question I have, under definitions in the Act, 100.10, definition of person excludes or says does not include the federal government or any authority of the Federal Government.
That would seem to indicate that a Commissioner acting in his or her official capacity --
would appear to undercut the notion that a Commissioner is acting in his or her official capacity, may petition their own agency for a rulemaking.
As my colleague pointed out, in some ways there is nothing unusual about a Commissioner bringing a document and putting it on the agenda.
That is absolutely true.
Long-standing directives give Commissioners ample tools to bring matters before the Commission.
Anyone of us can bring an agenda document, make it part of the agenda, have it go blue as kind of the parlance that we use here.
As she pointed out at the last meeting, she exercised that prerogative to bring forward the resolution that we voted on to open a rule-making that had a substantial overlap with the petition that we have at issue here.
As I mentioned, Commissioners have ample tools at their disposal to bring matters before the commission.
The petition procedure set forth in part 200 of the rules is really designed for the public, private citizens, private organizations.
They don't have the same tools that we as Commissioners have to put a matter on the agenda, and as a result, I think that that is probably why -- I don't know if it would be the exclusive reason, but probably one of the reasons -- excluded from a definition of person.
So, just as a threshold matter, I have a question and strong concerns about whether or not Commissioners may avail themselves of the petition process set forward in part 200. 
>> The question about the definition of person is not one that had occurred to us and it is not one that we have thought about frankly.
But generally speaking, the definitions in part 100 of the Commission's regulations only apply to the regulations in that part of title 11, which is sections 100 through 116.
They don't generally apply to parts 200, 300, etc.
>> They don't apply or don't apply unless there is a conflict with a definition?
I know for example in part 300, definitional standard and definitions from part 100 apply unless otherwise trumped by the definitions.
And there is also definitions in the ex parte section of the part 200 of the rules.
But I don't see anything that would say that -- I mean, there are other -- the term Commission is not defined in part 200 either.
And is that definition up for grabs since it is not otherwise defined in part 200?
It would seem to me that part 100 definitions apply throughout 11 C.F.R. unless otherwise noted in the subsequent parts.
>> There are some regulations where there are clearly different definitions used.
Ones that precede part 100, another example, and there are other regulations as you point out that use terms that are defined in part 100 without separately defining them and it is generally assumed that they're used in the same way.
Just making a very technical point that the definitions in part 100 are for the sub-chapter.
That sub -- 
>> Are they defined as such saying that these only apply to the sub-chapter?
>> Part 100.1 indicates that it's the sub-chapter that -- 
>> It says it is issued to implement FICA which seals unremarkable, that it says these only apply to.
Are not generally applicable throughout the code.
>> Right, like I said, other regulations, outside part 100 that appear to be using the same definitions in the same way.
I don't know.
I can't opine right now on whether person is such a term.
>> Okay.
>> Can I -- could I ask for some clarification?
Because I understand that there was a petition filed by representative Van Hollen who clearly is also probably even more so a member of the government and that was never an issue as far as I understand it either at this Commission or as we went forward.
So, can you give me some sort of background on that?
Was this issue ever -- 
>> There was a petition for rulemaking filed by representative Van Hollen about -- probably four, five years ago, and I'm not aware of this issue being raised at the time.
>> But there was never anybody who either raised it or looked at that issue to indicate that it was inappropriate for him to be able to file a petition, I presume.
I wasn't here, so I'm just curious if you know about the history of that.
>> I don't believe so, no.
Not to our knowledge.
>> Thank you.
Commissioner Weintraub.
>> Thank you, I was here and we did, indeed, publish Congressman Van Hollen's petition -- 
>> And the other members of the Commission were here as well --
>> I don't recall it being at all controversial at the time.
First of all, let me say that I cannot believe that you are actually going to take the position that I am not a person.
I find that a corporation is a person, but I'm not in a person.
>> We are not in the realm of common sense, 11 C.F.R.
Stipulate that we are not dealing with common sense -- 
>> You want to insist that I am not a person.
>> That's right.
>> That's how bad it has gotten.
My colleagues will not admit that I am a person.
That's really striking.
Well even accepting your assumptions for the moment, which for the purpose of argument, this regulation speaks to the Federal Government or any authority of the Federal Government.
Sadly, I have no authority.
I can't do anything unless I get three other Commissioners to vote with me.
I don't believe that I am under that provision.
And the notion that I am not --
that because I'm a member of this Commission, that I am not a person, is just kind of dumb founding.
>> Commissioner Hunter.
>> Going back in time to the Van Hollen petition, we did discuss whether or not it was appropriate for him to file that.
And my recollection, and I could go back and see if I can find old documents on that, but my recollection is that the conclusion -- we came to the conclusion that he was filing it in his individual capacity, which seemed odd and raised a number of other issues with regard to who was paying for his representation and all of this stuff.
I don't recall the specifics.
My recollection is that people said he was filing it in his individual capacity.
And whether or not you are a member of the government, you know, you're presidentially appointed member of a federal commission.
I think you certainly are part of the Federal Government.
>> It doesn't say part of the Federal Government.
It says the Federal Government.
>> And I think taking a step back, I agree with everything that the Vice Chair said.
There actually is a lot of common sense to reading this to mean that Commissioners aren't persons and that's what I meant.
I didn't mean literally you are not a person.
>> My children are going to be really disappointed.
>> I think you're not an alien, at least not today.
But the reason why it is common sense to say that none of the six of us are persons under this provision of the regulations and the act is because the APA is what started this provision in motion.
The administrative Procedures Act, which says that each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
And then we adopted this regulation that we're talking about now.
The one that Commissioners PetePetersen discussed.
Explanation accompanying the rule when passed, FEC adopted regulations that authorize the submissions of petitions for rulemaking.
Regulations were designed to quote provide the public with easy access to the procedures for filing rule-making petitions with the Commission.
So, it's very clear, both in the APA and in our -- in the ENJ that we adopted with the provision that commissioner Petersen is talking about, that this is met for members of the public to petition the Federal Government, and for the purposes of this, we're members of the Commission.
We're not members of the public while we're sitting here.
We're listening to members of the public, and, further more, this guide book that I rely on a lot of American university, guide to federal agency rulemaking, specifically says on page 198, in the section entitled external considerations, subsection two, public petitions for rulemaking.
The public too may provide the impetus for rulemaking and walks through some of the things that I just talked about.
In addition to that, I think Commissioner Goodman may want to highlight other research.
When this statute was implemented in various regulatory bodies throughout the Federal Government, including the FEC, it was meant for members of the public.
My understanding is that the chair of the Commission and the longest serving member of the Commission, have filed this petition in their capacity as Commissioners.
So, you're not -- you can avail yourself as the Vice Chair, as Commissioners Weintraub mentioned, of many other ways to put a document on the agenda.
Nobody is arguing with that.
What we're arguing with is this is not the property method or procedure for members of the Commission.
It's meant for the public.
Public should be able to petition us.
If a member of the public submitted this very same petition, I would vote to publish it. 
>> Did you -- do you have something to add?
>> Well, several things.
A, you know, it's ironic -- a lot of irony on the agenda today.
It is ironic that what we're trying to do here is provide a mechanism to have a discussion with members of the public to put something out for public comment, to hear from the public.
And what you're saying is in the interest of protecting the interest of the public, you're going to stop them from having that opportunity to comment to us, unless perhaps somebody in the audience or out there wants to copy our petition and fail it on -- file it on their own behalf tomorrow in which case you will vote for it.
Who knows?
Maybe that might happen.
I suppose the next question, like Congressman Van Hollen, would you permit us to file it in our individual capacities if you are willing to concede that we are, in fact, people when we leave the building. 
>> Commissioner Hunter.
>> I don't know.
I would be happy to look at that and consider it.
I haven't thought through DIRNT issue -- different issues.
I haven't had a chance to think about if you were filing it in your personal capacity.
Happy to look into it and talk to you about it.
My understanding at this point you are filing it as members of the Commission.
If any member of the public desires to copy it and file it as a petition, I said I would vote for it as long as it is proper and it does appear to be proper other than that.
I might point to a couple of substantive issues.
Agenda document 15-31-B, the one that was submitted by Ann Ravel and Ellen Weintraub.
The second full paragraph, second to the last line on that page, subsequent related -- we are talking about Citizens United and what the court did.
Subsequent related court decisions combined with inaction on the part of the FEC has led to a proliferation of super PACs and other outside spending groups.
Blah, blah, blah.
You might want to change or add citations to it.
It is not because of inaction on the FEC.
The FEC adopted two advisory opinions.
The first one AO-2010-11, common sense 10, which by all accounts created superPACs.
There wasn't any sitting around on the part of the FEC on that.
We specifically said the creation of superPACs was perper -- permissible under Supreme Court doctrine.
Contrary to the court's directive, however, millions of dollars in anonymous spending has surged into federal elections.
And there is press stuff about dark money.
You might want to amend that and read the case before you copy this and send it in.
Supreme Court, citizens united case had nothing to do with dark money.
It only upheld requirement for disclosures for independent expenditures -- nothing to do with dark money or political committees or anything like that.
You might want to amend it before you send it in. 
>> Did you have a -- 
Commissioner Weintraub.
>> I'm sure members of the public are happy to have your editing advice, although I suspect that anybody who might want to submit this will submit what they want to submit, not what you want to hear.
>> Of course they may. 
>> I am happy to present this in either my individual or my official capacity.
I don't think it really matters.
I think I'm a person either way.
And I also will note that I did, in fact, reach out to my colleagues yesterday -- 
>> Yesterday.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, yesterday.
>> Okay.
>> Having heard nothing from you up until yesterday, and because I believe that it was a non-discretionary and shouldn't be a controversial decision, I asked the Vice Chairman yesterday, are you guys going to have a problem with this?
Could I just finish my sentence.
>> I didn't say anything.
I was just going like this.
>> I will call on you next, Commissioner Hunter.
>> I asked the question if you were going to have a problem with this, and I got sort of an I don't know and we're still talking about it.
And I just -- I'm having a hard time believing that all of this was concocted and that you guys weren't thinking this through before close of business yesterday.
You know, if -- I actually did reach out to try and find out if you were going to have a problem and I wish that you would have just said that so that, you know, we would have known what we were walking into today.
Either way, as I said, I'm happy to present it in my individual capacity when Congressman Van Hollen presented his petition, he did identify himself as representative Van Hollen.
So, you know -- 
>> If that is what is on all of the -- 
>> That's what's on the petition.
It is not a secret that I am a member of the Federal Election Commission. 
But -- I'm just -- I really do find it comical that you're going to -- you are so opposed to having -- giving the public this opportunity to weigh in ton these issues that -- on these issues that you are willing to take the legal position that we are not persons.
>> I find it comical that we got an email from a staff lawyer who works with, I believe with the chair, I'm not sure, and attached is a rulemaking petition on behalf of chair Ravel and commissioner Weintraub -- that is sent on June 8th, exactly 11:00 a.m.
And then one of the republican Commissioners got an email from the USA Today -- on the very same day, June 8th, at 11:15 a.m.
Wanted to get thoughts on this petition from Ravel and Weintraub and she includes a link to a story that she has already written on the petition.
So, the first notice that we even -- we had no idea that this petition was being drafted.
We found out first from the email that I said on June 8th at 11:00 a.m. and the story was already written by 11:15 a.m.
So, so much for, you know, giving people a heads up and worrying about giving them time to talk about things.
>> There is time.
We are discussing it now several weeks later, right?
I mean as we do with the things that -- other things that get placed on the agenda, not in advance, but that same day.
>> It would have been nice to know what was coming and find out about it directly from our colleagues than from the USA Today 15 minutes after the petition was sent around.
In addition, Chair said, so many articles, but I think it was in the CNN one, Chair said people will say you are the Chair of the Commission.
You should work from within.
I tried.
With all due respect, I wasn't a part of any of those conversations.
Maybe my colleagues were although I doubt it.
Republican member of the regs committee, and we have not talked about anything of these issues I believe since you joined the Commission, but certainly in this calendar year.
And the only person who has ever talked to me about these issue is with any seriousness is commissioner Walther.
He has come to me and talked with a lot of specificity -- 
with a lot of specificity on these issues.
Constructive conversations, but I haven't had one conversation with either Commissioners Weintraub or the Chair and I don't believe my colleagues have either on any of these issues.
>> I have to respond to that, because I do differ with your recollection of this.
As you recall last year, I reached out to those of you on the other side of the aisle, and agreed to provide the fourth vote and have a discussion that was an extensive discussion and conversation concerning the issues that were raised by both Citizens United and the McCutcheon decision.
Ultimately I did provide that fourth vote after what was -- I thought very good and straightforward negotiations with respect to the purely conforming regulatory matters and at the time I spoke to you about the fact that there was a concern about the failure to have other matters that were discussed in Citizens United, relating to disclosure, coordination, and other matters that were not part of our discussions.
And you said to me quite clearly that that was off the table.
That you would not consider those matters at all.
So, that, I believe, was sufficient information for me to understand from you and others -- and you're the other part of the regs committee, as am I.
It was very clear to me that we were never going to go forward and -- and that is the reason that this matter had been held up for five years, and why I committed and agreed to do the other regulations, as I have gone over the aisle on numerous occasions last year in providing the fourth vote for many matters.
So, this is -- this is something that I have worked on very hard to try to achieve some resolutions with you, but it was clear to me on matters that concern me that I think are important to the American public relating to the issues that are going to be presented in our upcoming campaigns, that we should be thinking about those matters about disclosure of who's behind campaign contributions, all disclosure that you and your fellow commissioners on that side of the aisle will not ever provide the required fourth vote for either regulations or other matters.
So, that is why we are here today.
That is why we are taking this unusual step.
I would never have considered doing something like this unless I was absolutely abundantly clear that there was never going to be any movement on your side to help in trying to move our regulations and do the job that we're entrusted to do by the people of this country and by Congress to do disclosure.
>> Thank you.
Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> If you're so convinced of that, why are we doing this?
Exercise in futility.
>> I disagree.
What is an exercise in futility is if we are so insular that we do not allow the American public, citizens of this country who have a very vital interest in how our electoral processes are conducted to weigh in, to talk about these issues that are so important to them, that the CBS, "New York Times" poll that Commissioner Weintraub referenced, across the board, republicans, independents, democrats are concerned about our campaign financial system, and we as the agency entrusted with this job, we should be listening and we should be allowing them to speak and that's what I think is key.
I know that it's going to be difficult for any of you to vote yes on any of these matters, but I do not believe that it is at all futile to have the American public be a party to the work that we do.
I think it is absolutely our requirement.
I said it at the beginning of the year when I was Chair that what I wanted to do was open up this Commission to allow the American public to come in and voice their views about the issues that we do that are so critical.
>> Thank you.
Going back to our conversations, which I believe were approximately nine months ago.
I could be off by a little bit.
But something along the lines of ninish months ago.
You're right.
I did say let's not include anything else in the rulemaking that we were discussing at that time.
I don't recall saying that we would never consider these issues, but I will say that now.
I will say, yes, to the extent that we're asked to do things that in our view are either unconstitutional or outside of the Commission's authority or pending before Congress, as we have said over and over, those are not things that we are interested in doing.
We have explained what our position is.
So, to suggest that we're just sitting around with no reason to vote for this is not true.
And we did talk about it in the context of that agreement that you're right, you provided the fourth vote on last year, but I think we have not talked about it at all this year.
You have never asked me about any of these issues this year.
You're right.
I would tell you, same thing that we have said before, I think it is a waste of time to ask the public to weigh in, a waste of their time, no the -- 
not mine.
A waste of their time to lead them down a path of thinking we are going to be able to do something about this.
The premise of the document, as I pointed out earlier, I think is misaccurate and misleading.
And the comments we received last time -- we did open it up for public comment.
A lot of comments, many virtually identical -- 
proposals that were pending before Congress -- 
>> We were talking about disclosure, and, yes, we were discussing it in the context of Citizens United rulemaking, but it was very clear that this was something, as you are saying now, that you would be unwilling to do in any context.
And I have also in addition spoken to you about coordination.
In the context of us being members of the regulations committee, and how we needed to augment our coordination rules.
You spoke about coordination with respect to party coordination, and I said we need to look at this more broadly because this is an issue that was raised in citizens united.
This is an issue that we are concerned about.
You specifically said no.
>> What kinds of things would you want to do on coordination?
>> I am not -- I think that we needed to discuss it and you did not want to discuss it at all.
You did not want it to be on the agenda of the Regulations Committee.
You did not want to even discuss it.
I am not going to sit here today and tell you exactly what I think the ultimate result is.
I think it is a complicated question.
>> Okay.
>> No question.
It is something that a functioning Commission would be discussing.
But we were not even able to get to the discussion of that.
>> My understanding from the last hearing when we were talking about considering changing the coordination rules, which, as you know, they're a product of numerous and Commissioner Weintraub knows this, because she was involved in many of the regulatory changes, numerous court battles where you had one side saying you're -- first amendment and on the other side people saying you're not regulating enough.
Commission came up with a rule that was the happy medium, perhaps, between the two concerns.
Nobody sued us on this rule for the first time in a long time.
It was a well thought-out bargain all along the way.
And my understanding of the kinds of things that some want to do is once again adopt through regulation a law that is pending before Congress right now and it is, I believe, the price Van Hollen -- model that we have been asked to follow.
>> Madam Chair.
>> Commissioner Weintraub.
>> I just want to -- I agree with everything that the Chair said but I also want to add that I have to hear from Commissioner Hunter, that I have never talked to you about these issues -- for years we were on the regs committee, we -- for months to try to craft a document that would address on a broad scale all of the issues, many of which we have raised again in this petition.
And I recall well a date in October, 2010, when you just said to me point blank we're not going to do this.
That issue is off the table.
That issue is off the table.
That issue is off the table.
We are not going to allow any M prn to go out the door that invites public comment on these issues.
I think what I'm hearing today is really -- so -- it is an untrue statement that you and I have never talked about these issues.
We have talked about them at great length.
We have not gotten very far.
When chair Ravel came on board, why don't you take a turn on the regs committee because I am not making any headway.
I also think when I look at the polling out there about how people are so fed up with the system that -- oh, and let me mention by the way that some of the proposals that I have been trying to get through predate anything that was presented in Congress.
I have been pitching these ideas for years now.
Internally.
They just haven't gone anywhere.
But when I read the polling data, when I look at polls that say that 85%, 85% of the people who responded to the poll thought we ought to either start from scratch or have fundamental revisions of the campaign finance law, what I see is that there are some people in Washington, and some of them sit at this table, who just don't care what the American people think, and are really averse to hearing from the American people on these issues, and think they can get away with thumbing their nose at what the American people want.
I'll go back to where I started.
I'm a public servant.
And I think I really need to listen to the public.
I think that's part of my job to try to be responsive to public concerns.
And there was a column recently in the Washington Post, and the ending line was unless the American people demand that Washington behave differently than the way it's behaving now, things are just going to keep on the way they are now.
And I think, you know, maybe you're prepared to say it doesn't matter if the American people demand it.
It doesn't matter to you what the American people think or if we got a million comments saying that they want to see better disclosure from outside spending groups or they are dumb-founded by the notion that some of these groups claim to be independent are actually independent.
Maybe none of that matters to you.
Maybe it just doesn't.
It matters to me. 
>> Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Thank you.
I just want to make two points.
Address the larger policy issue and then go back to what I started with.
I don't think -- I will speak for myself, I don't think that my job is to ignore the public or not to be interested in what the public has to say.
There -- we have procedures in place to actually -- that require the Commission to listen to petitions that are submitted from members of the public, and when we have a rule-making that is underway to receive comments from the public.
We must consider those comments.
In fact, failure to do so can cause whatever action that may result from a rulemaking to be subject to court challenge.
There is undoubtedly a role for a FEC Commissioner to be responsive to what public comment says.
Role of a FEC Commissioner and a role of a member of Congress or a member of the Senate.
We have to act within the scope of authority that has been granted to us under the statute.
And that's been interpreted by the courts.
And notwith standing what 99% of what the public might say on an issue, if it is outside of the scope of authority I have as a Commissioner, I can't act.
It is up to those who represent the you know hundreds of millions, the many millions and millions of registered voters to decide how the larger outline of federal campaign finance law is going to look.
And we have had this debate many times about -- we have a disagreement.
And I respect the position that my colleagues have, and I understand the commitments and I respect those commitments.
I know they're heart felt and deeply interwoven.
I have equally deep commitments and principles that I feel I have to be true to as well.
We have a disagreement about the scope of what a Commissioner can do, not with standing what public opinion may say.
I can't act outside of what I believe my authority is as it has been defined by the federal election campaign act and I just want to say I'm more than willing to listen to the public.
Absolutely important role that the public plays in our determinations here, but I can't allow that to disregard what it is -- what I believe that the statute authorizes me to do in my capacity as a Commissioner.
But just going back to where I began.
I've tried to avoid any discussion on the substance of this because if this is proper, and I raise the question, and I was -- we had a lot on our table the last little while.
I was up until about 2:00, 2:30 going through and looking through the regulatory language and digging through other information regarding rulemaking and so forth to see if I was missing something.
I don't -- I don't begrudge or deny my colleagues from bringing anything that they want to up for consideration for the Commission.
But it has to be in accordance with either the directives that we have or in accordance with the rules as I read them, at least, and, so, you know, whether this was converted to a blue document and brought before the Commission for a vote, that's a prerogative that every Commissioner has and we dealt with a resolution last time.
To me this is about the procedural integrity of the process.
And what I can do as a Commissioner and what is my role with this sort of a petition.
I don't want to really address the substance at this point because I think we're at a point before we even get into the substance, at a threshold issue about whether or not this is permissible.
But I do want to say that I don't -- my fellow Commissioners, I know, have their commitments.
And they have every right to bring their concerns as they have.
Either to the table here through the press, through speeches, through articles that they may write.
I think there is a -- 
absolutely every right that a Commissioner has to make their views felt on these issues.
I don't seek to circumscribe that.
There is a procedure in place, there is a threshold issue here where I'm having a difficult time getting over the hump to the conclusion that this is a process that is set forth, the petition process is one that a Commissioner can avail themselves in their role as a Commissioner.
Again, I'm starting back to where I started.
I won't be a broken record any longer.
>> Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
Other comments?
Commissioner Goodman.
>> Well, let me pick up where Vice Chair Petersen left off and invoke the phrase of the day, this is an unusual technique because it was so unusual that, you know, it did send me down to the library, literally sitting in the library down stairs and pulling -- to try to figure out whether a Commissioner is an interested person under this procedure.
A little background would be helpful here.
Last year, six commissioners voted -- internal policy-making exercise, and chair Ravel, I think you will admit that I was the first republican to offer my vote to you to bring that public comment into the building.
And that is the way that Commissioners typically conduct their business and engage in the policy-making debate enterprise.
Eventually we got six Commissioners vote for an ANprn.
It was published.
We agreed to receive comments from the public.
Held an all-day hearing and we heard diverse points of view that were of various persuasions and various ideologies and perspectives on what we should do.
And a funny thing happened on the way to the forum.
The four corners of the -- we issued got expanded and we accepted comments on a number of diverse issues, not just the four corners of the issue of McCutcheon.
We heard them all.
We received the comments.
I've read many of them.
And -- but the way we got there was through -- through internal policy-making procedures, which I think is the usual technique.
And it was bipartisan, and we have received those comments.
Now, we have considered them.
And then following up on that hearing, Commissioner Weintraub one meeting ago proposed a resolution to act on a host of issues raised that we had here that day.
And that motion failed.
Okay.
It was defeated. 
So, out of frustration now, I understand the frustration.
I have been on the losing side of some votes here myself.
You can't just circumvent the powers and limits on the powers of your Commission office by invoking a procedure that is in -- for the public -- I have looked through and researched this issue.
It is of interest to me.
Office of General Counsel said it didn't occur to them, because it occurred to me very quickly, could I do that as a Commissioner?
This is a procedure available to the public.
And on the issue of Van Hollen, Congressman, whether he is an individual or a Congressman fits the model that is discussed generally in the treatises that whether you discuss this procedure as one available to the public, or the other phrase that is often used by one of the law view articles in the field is outsiders to the agency.
The APA in 1946 was enacted to give people outside of the agency the ability to influence the policy-making process inside.
It was not intended to give the agency officials who have the inherent power to engage in precisely the procedures that we engaged in last year and earlier this year, the powers to lobby their own agency. 
So, let me just walk through why first Commissioner Hunter read our own explanation and justification from 1992 that accompanied this regulation.
And it did say this was to provide the public the procedures they needed to bring petitions before the agency.
And that follows from the APA statute that authorized this regulation in the first instance.
The definitive work interpreting that APA provision, section 553-E.
What is 1947 attorney general's manual on the administrative procedure act.
It has been identified by the Supreme Court as the authoritative source on interpreting that provision.
And the attorney general's APA manual from 1947 says the right to petition under section 553-E must be accorded to any interested person.
It will be proper for an agency to limit this right to persons whose interests are or will be affected by the issuance, amendment, or appeal of the rule and goes on to discuss that in terms of members of the public who would be affected.
When you look at the legislative history of the APA, Senate judiciary print of June 1945, often cited by the courts.
Says this document explains that the petition provision requires agencies -- the DC circuit has said administrative procedure act may be said to have four basic purposes, including to provide for public participation in the rule-making process. 
Every time a court has mentioned this process, this statute, whether it is the 9th circuit, district court District of Columbia, district of Oregon, or D.C. circuit, they have discussed this petition process by a reference to the public and citizens.
Not public officials petitioning their own agency.
I will read from the 9th circuit in northwest system alliance, U.S. fish and wildlife service, section 553-E of the APA -- citizens the right to -- the district court in the District of Columbia, in national gay rights advocates HHS, not disputed that section 553-E of the APA establishes a procedure for the filing of citizens petitions.
Also the district court for the District of Columbia as recently as 2013, friends of the earth, EPA, section 553 is the citizen petition.
District of Oregon, 2004, center for biological diversity V Norton, quote, interested citizens may also petition the secretary to add or remove species from the endangered or threatened list.
And the D.C. circuit in 1979, case called NRDC versus securities and exchange commission, public participation in agency decision-making is increasingly recognized as a desirable objective.
Congress to some extent recognized the value of citizen input when provided the right for petition of rulemaking in the APA. 
Now, there are analogous cases interpreting 16 USC section 1533B3A.
Statute that say -- applies to fish and wildlife service, and citizens right to petition the fish and wildlife service for the addition of species and that statute, 553-5 USC.
Every time the court has reviewed that citizen petition process, it has talked about third party petitions, citizens requests and citizen petitions.
So, then, I've looked at other legal resources, including the treatise that Commissioner Hunter mentioned by Jeffrey Lubbers.
There is a 2014 final report to the administrative conference of the United States, Jason Schwartz and Richard Ravez. 
That builds on work in 1988 by the Seminole author on this subject, William -- the recognized national expert and wrote the piece in the Wisconsin law review in 1988.
Both of these documents are very clear that the petition process that is being invoked here by two public officials was intended for outsiders of the agency.
That's the reference by Mr. Loonberg in his law view article.
And in the final report dated 2014 that builds on and picks up on his work in the 1980s, which is the final report to the administrative conference of the United States on page one discusses the petition process applicable to the general public.
And on page 11, refers to them as public petitions.
In fact, it has become so totalogical in the treatises --
it often doesn't bear repeating in some of the treatises.
Assumed premise.
If you look at wright and Miller, 32, federal practice and procedural, under judicial review.
Citizen has a right to petition an agency for rulemaking and discussions the petition right as one applicable to private parties.
Seven west federal admin law practice, 75-29, repeats those phrases.
Citizens and private parties.
We have then looked at other agencies -- petition process under the APA.
And we have looked at the lay explanations on their web sites for their own petition processes.
APA requires agencies to offer a petition process.
F FCC -- right of the public, health and Human Services, regulated groups and other stakeholders that the public may ask or petition.
Department of Transportation uses the phrase it is available to the public.
The nuclear regulatory commission says any member of the public may petition.
The office of the federal register has this on its web site.
How does a significant I decide to begin rule-making, and it goes on petitions from interest groups, corpses, members -- 
corporations, members of the public -- from a member of the public, it may decide to announce a petition in the federal register and accept public comments on the issue.
The APA grants to the public the right to petition for rule-making and requires agencies to provide a decision on the merits. 
In addition to that research, when you read in context the petition process we have in our regulations, I think it gives the fallacy to a member of -- 
official of the agency invoking the process.
For example, in our own regulation, 11 C.F.R. section 200.3D, provides that the Commission will not consider the merits of the petition before the EKSiration of the comment -- I don't know how two officials petition their own agency, give impassioned speeches -- and yet maintain that you have not already reached the merits of your own petition. 
There is the issue of whether or not -- what would constitute the public record here.
Provides that the agency record for the petition -- consists of all correspondence between the -- other -- would that include all internal communication between each other and to the staff?
I'm not saying I'm ready to look at all of that.
It introduces great confusion on what hat you're wearing when you discuss this with your own staff and the emails that go back and forth.
What would be, what would be included in this public record where two public officials have invoked the petition procedure?
And, finally, is the issue, you know, representative Van Hollen has standing to sue us as well.
And I don't think that any of us wants to be in the position of saying that because we have the same standing that representative Van Hollen may have, we're prepared to sue our agency as well when we lose votes.
This procedure cannot be a sort of an alternative sore loser process.
I have lost votes on the commission to move forward as recently as one meeting ago, and, therefore, I am going to invoke a process that gives me standing to get to objectives that I could not have gotten to as a Commissioner.
In other words, advance past the majority vote of the Commission in order to put something out for public comment in the federal register that I have already lost in one vote, as well as obtain standing to sue when the agency does not vote my way on the substance of the petition.
So, then looking at whether or not one would want to invoke kind of a hybrid individual capacity, let me just say -- 
>> I'm sorry, I just found out that I am not an alien at least not today.
Am I now a hybrid individual?
Can you explain to me what that is?
>> Excuse me, I meant hybrid standing, where I am invoking my standing as a citizen to bring it to the agency.
Well, let's walk through all of the legal problems that flow from that.
Okay.
So I take my Commissioner hat off.
I send a petition to my own agency.
In order to invoke citizen standing under this petition process.
I then put my Commissioner hat back on, sit at the dies and sit in judgment of my own private petition to the agency.
I arguably then have the right to take my commissioner hat off because of the standing that I have asserted and the harm I have asserted or the interest I have asserted to be an interested person as a IT -- 
citizen -- give is me the -- so now I have certain standing to take my Commissioner hat off again and sue the agency to counterman a vote I lost on the commission and then put your commissioner hat back on and come and sit here in executive session and discuss the litigation, merits, proceedings, regarding my own litigation against the agency.
I think that gives the fallacy to going to individual standing and taking your Commissioner hat off.
If you are stuck with Commissioner standing do to, I think that the procedure is in -- 
>> Are you -- not yet.
>> If the Commissioner has standing to bring this before the body and to invoke themselves as an interested person, then I also presumably would have standing to bring an advisor opinion request before the agency, take my Commissioner hat off, file an advisory opinion request, put my Commissioner hat back on, come sit at this body and opine on my own advisory opinion request, and then take my Commissioner hat back off, sue the agency if I don't get the result that I want.
Put my Commissioner hat back on and sue the agency because I feel aggrieved by the advisory opinion result.
For these reasons, I believe we have tried to pound a square peg into a round hole.
And I don't think that we are in proper procedural footing and I do not believe this petition is properly and legally presented to the Commission. 
>> Thank you for your extensive a -- let me just say obviously we have consulted legal advice prior to doing this, but nonetheless, first, no one here is talking about suing the agency.
No one has ever suggested that.
And that's not what we have before us.
We have a notice.
We have voting on a notice for a petition to put it on the federal register.
Just because this is an unusual act by members of the Commission, and was not contemplated -- of course it was not contemplated in what the APA provides and thank you for all of the law review articles.
Anybody could have said that.
We understand that the whole purpose that -- that that was set up for was for public input into an agency, which, of course, this agency doesn't normally like.
But the fact that we have laws, many of them that relate to campaign finance that do not specifically relate to things that are being done today, because they have not actually -- they were not contemplated.
That was not the purpose of the law.
We could say that with respect to super PACs for example or various other things that we deal with every day, and the whole purpose is to look at what the underlying interest is, and the underlying interest here is an ability to get public input.
And I would just reiterate what Commissioner Weintraub said previously, it's interesting that suddenly process and the law is so significant when, you know, we often look at what seems to be clear law, and can't seem to extend it to other circumstances, but what we have before us is the interest in allowing the public, allowing citizens of this country to speak to the Commission.
That's what the purpose of the APA is.
That's what we're doing.
So, for you and I appreciate your desire to hang your hat on what you consider to be, you know, clear law and process and procedure, but in fact, if we think about what we're doing here today, it's this Commission that is denying the ability of people of this country to speak to us about matters that are clearly within our purview and that are clearly things that are a concern to the public, and that are clearly things that this Commission should be considering.
So, I, you know, I leave it at that.
It's not surprising to me what has occurred, but nonetheless, you know, just a moment.
I'm still speaking.
Nonetheless, I can see what the outcome is but it appears there is other members of the public that are concerned about this too and might remedy the problem here.
>> Two quick responses.
You have suggested the right to sue the agency by asserting interested person status under this petition process.
By doing so, you can become an aggrieved person under the APA.
You have inherently by taking this step and putting this hat on, you have asserted the same standing that it would take or virtually identical standing to then sue the agency.
And you invoke Chris Van Hollen and he has clearly sued the agency several time.
Secondly I would say I understand the broader policy interest -- we have received them as recently as four months ago -- but the ends that you mean to achieve do not justify the procedural means of invoking an inaposite procedure intended for the public and not Commissioners.
>> Should I make a motion?
>> Yes, I think -- is there any further comment from Commissioners?
Commissioner Walther.
>> Everybody has to chime in here.
here.
>> It has been a concern to me on how we treat this matter that -- really what might ultimately result.
I believe very strongly in the campaign finance law.
I don't think anybody should doubt that.
Been on here second to the longest, probably too long, but throughout all of that no question in my mind that the public finance law is a good one.
I was not comfortable with the five-person decision in Citizens United.
That's the law.
I was -- Chairman of the commission during the litigation.
Only Commissioner that went there to hear the ugly news early by the court that morning.
Front row, center.
And it has made a big impression on all of us and the nation.
So, we have to look as Commissioners -- when I took this job, left a great law practice of 37 years totally, and my firm was 33 to come here.
The thought was to try and make a contribution, support the law, make a difference.
I was warned not to the agree I should have been about what I could expect here.
And it reminds me of a conversation I recall with senator and -- he was a good friend of mine for years.
He retired and was working for a law firm.
Senator, asked to serve on the Federal Election Commission what do you think?
There was a big silence.
And he said, well, Steve, he said, they won't put it on our epithetepithet.
Notwithstanding, I showed up here.
I have been totally frustrated with the inability to write editorials, to suggest, to do things that take me away from the need to be objective to all sides that come before us.
So I'm torn by this situation that we have right now. 
I believe in the positions that my two colleagues are advocating.
I think we can do a better job with foreign investment.
I think we could do obviously a better job in filling the holes that existed since citizens united.
First thing we can do is repeal a -- I supported it at the time never thinking of the implications of how people would interpret it.
That's -- reg -- I should know it by heart -- but if we wanted to fill a hole -- 220-C-A -- we could start with that.
But we're not doing that.
We have in the last year learned a lot on our own initiative about how the public feels.
Consistent with the polls.
Don't like the results of too much money in the political marketplace.
So, what we're going to get is a reaffirmation of what we already know and we have heard it in spades.
So, then what do we do here when -- I have respect my Commissioners' views -- I wouldn't call it the other side, but who depart from my view and the chair's and Commissioner Weintraub.
Yes, citizens united -- and what we ever anticipated, and the disclose act, if adopted, would have filled a lot of the holes and made rulemaking much easier.
Their position, Congress won't even fill those holes on its own should we take the initiative ourselves to do what Congress feared to tread.
Now, I feel strongly enough to think that perhaps we should do that.
And see where the courts take it.
And, so, I would support a lot of what is being supported in this petition and have already. 
But I look at the position we're in here.
I have written on whether or not -- what would be our procedure if someone petitioned in individual capacity versus their representative capacity or in their quasi responsible capacity, cognitive of as a Commissioner and what the implications are.
I'm troubled by whether or not we should trigger the resources of the agency to satisfy our frustration, and to try to move in a direction -- outside the normal bounds of doing that, because it brings in -- our own staff, resources of -- and what would happen coming out of it.
If it is true, as implication, nothing will come out.
Resources of the agency will never be touched beyond putting it on the federal register.
If that is so, I'm not sure it is a very wise thing for us to use the petition making process to accomplish that result.
If it is not true, general counsel's office called into play here -- two commissioners, could be one, two, could be three, triggering the resources of the agency in this way, using the resources.
That means that any petitioner, any time any Commissioner could file their own petition and start the ball rolling and we didn't agree with that and the next thing you know a petition for rulemaking and we're caught in a situation which I don't think most of us envisioned that -- I think there are other ways that if we -- we're not satisfied, we know what the public thinks now, we could do a lot on our own.
We could let the public know on the web site, write me and let me know how you feel.
Could do a lot of things like that.
But we're not talking about that here.
I'm concerned a little bit -- 
not a little bit -- but about the petition itself.
Because when you look at the petition, I agree with the objective entirely on what you're trying to accomplish.
It is a partisan one.
It is not objective coming from the agency itself or representing both sides.
By the way, I think I have been critical, and I think a big failure on the part of the Commissioners has been for them to refuse to listen to each other and to let the public listen to each of us.
All of us are big advocates of free speech.
That is -- this is a big deal.
But when it comes to having a rulemaking, we have seen to have been unable to allow the rules that we would propose to be made public.
And until we're willing to tolerate each other's views, our rulemaking process is a farce.
I think we have to actually listen.
Everybody here has a right in rulemaking to have their views heard.
When that happens, I think you'll find that we can make some rules available to the public for consideration.
And in this particular case, it's -- to me, it is a call for help.
I don't think it is a call for the kind of serious rulemaking that I think that we should be doingdoing.
I'm uncomfortable with some of the language in it.
It looks more like a sales pitch than a direct objective approach towards obtaining a petition consideration.
And it makes the point, I think, excessively that somehow there is an obligation coming out of citizens united and some kind of a mandate as opposed to a -- an acceptance.
Citizens United, and the courts have talked about it, it is critical through our democracy.
Never said it is a constitutional right for disclosure.
I think they're -- the right to know.
The right of the public to know who is trying to govern them.
But that's not happened.
And I think it suggests here that somehow the will of the Supreme Court, as much as we disagree with citizens united in this position should be respected and followed.
And it says citizen is united premised on adequate disclosure of sources of outside spending.
I don't think that is necessary so.
They decided on one thing, and tolerated another.
But I don't think they were intrinsically linked.
If there was a disclosure provision, citizens united -- I don't think so.
But the suggestions here that says the court ruled that unlimited corporate political spending must be accompanied by transparency as to the sources of such spending.
I'm not comfortable with those assertions as being a basis to move forward.
Because it suggests that somehow the will of court is being frustrated if we just don't do it somehow.
This I think from a technical point of view, I'm not that comfortable with. 
While I agree with some of the things that are being sought for disclosure and hopefully, you know, at some point we may have a regulation or two that would follow from a healthy debate from hearing all sides, the questions that we ask on some of these issues, specifically the ones that we have -- coercion for example, coordination, there is nothing in this that suggests what kind of direction to take.
Nothing.
In other words, it is a -- it is an emorphous question and --
so, if we're looking at people who are really in the industry, who really know what this is all about, they don't need this.
So, I'm concerned about the process of triggering the resources in this way, and just looking technically at the petition itself, I'm concerned about its contents.
For those reasons, I have some obviously as you can tell some serious reservations, but then I simply -- then I have been told, maybe correctly so, that we must vote for this.
And I wrote to general counsel's office yesterday and got an email back yes, it is a mandatory thing.
I asked if this is a discretionary thing or not.
Let me tell you what the response was. 
>> Commissioner Walther, do you think rather than actually reading counsel's confidential advice to the Commission that you could sort of paraphrase --
>> I would be glad to.
I will leave it to the general counsel.
Arises to what authority -- 
fairly basic in terms of that -- it says what authority we have on this issue.
And if, in fact, it's mandatory thing, I would like to know if we have any discretion, and if so, how much there is.
Other issue has been raised on whether or not the status of the two petitioners affects whether the petition is entitled to legal -- a new issue for us and requires more attention.
>> Other comments before a motion.
Commissioner Weintraub.
>> Thank you, madam chair.
I'm very impressed by the amount of time and effort that my colleagues put into trying to come up with a reason to vote no on this.
And as my colleague, Commissioner Walther knows, we put together a detailed notice of proposed rulemaking that addressed many of these issues that had specific regulatory language and many alternatives and I think we put that to a vote.
I have lost track, four, five times.
Could never get that out the door as something for the public to comment on.
So, I share your frustration in our not being able to move by those means.
Having said that, and in -- if a document qualifies as a petition -- the Commission will upon the recommendation of Office of General Counsel will publish a notice of availability in the federal register stating petition is available for -- in consideration of all of that, I move that we approve the notice of availability drafted by the office of general counsel, and direct them to have it published in the federal register and authorize any necessary and technical and conforming amendments.
>> Speaking to the motion.
>> Excuse me.
>> I have a question for Office of General Counsel.
If a commissioner has a believe that the petition is not properly before the agency -- 
is the commissioner nonetheless required to vote yes on this --
>> The way the regulation, 200.3-A.
The way the regulation is crafted, once OGC recommends that it meets the qualifications, Commission has to public notice of availability.
That doesn't mean that the Commission has to public the exact notice of available that OGC has drafted.
It could have other language, it could contain qualifiers.
But the regulation doesn't appear to give any discretion.
>> If a Commissioner disagrees with the Office of General Counsel opinion and the general counsel opined some of these legal issues never occurred to them, you're saying that a Commissioner is bound by that even if the Commissioner fundamentally disagrees and has solid reason for disagreeing with the Office of General Counsel.
>> Commissioner, no document is going to get published in the federal register before it gets approved by the commission.
If there -- 
>> Commissioner Hunter, do you have a question?
Or comment?
>> Not right now.
>> Commissioner Walther.
>> I would move to postpone any vote until we have a more definitive view from the counsel on both of those issues.
>> On -- 
>> The issue of the status brought up earlier by Commissioners and the issues of implications of not voting.
I will say, confess, I did vote no once, two months after I arrived here, and it -- 
>> You were young then, commissioner Walther.
>> You're so right.
And not much smarter, I'll tell you.
But I did vote against it, with commissioner -- no one told me at the time there was an issue about it.
I didn't end up in Commissioner jail or -- 
>> Other than the jail we're already in.
>> So, I think we need clarity on what the word will means -- 
>> Commissioner Hunter.
>> I didn't hear the last word -- you need clarity on what?
>> What the word will means that relied upon here to say that it is a nondiscretionary publication -- does that mean if we don't vote for this, what's the implications?
It doesn't say it takes four votes.
It says the general counsel will.
It doesn't say it has to act on four votes.
>> Just to clarify, it doesn't say that the general counsel will, it is the Commission, upon the recommendation of the general counsel, will.
It is still the Commission that takes the action, not the general counsel.
>> What is your recommendation?
>> The cover memo indicates that OGC found the petition to qualify. 
>> Commissioner Hunter.
>> With all due respect, I don't think that because OGC found the petition qualifies that we therefore have any obligation to vote for it whatsoever.
As we have discussed, I don't believe that it qualifies.
We have extensively discussed that.
This is a provision meant for the public.
And I'm a little surprised that counsel isn't moved by any of those arguments, but nevertheless, even if the counsel still believes it qualifies.
I strongly disagree and I would not be supporting a motion to publish this notice.
>> Madam chair.
>> Commissioner Goodman >>.
I read the regulation to say if a document qualifies, Office of General Counsel doesn't bind the Commission in making that determination.
Upon recommendation of the Office of General Counsel qualifies what we do later, but the document must objectively qualify as a petition, and that's not something that we delegate to the Office of General Counsel to determine for us.
That's still relegated to the judgment of each Commissioner and a vote of the commission.
It is a predicate to the verb will publish.
So I have concluded in my mind that this does not qualify.
And, therefore, I'm not bound to publish.
>> Okay.
Were you making a motion to lay it on the table or are you -- 
was that -- you mentioned it.
Are you making a subsidiary motion to the motion?
>> That's my motion.
>> It is your motion.
>> The issue was raised early for the first time by general counsel.
It is an interesting issue and one that we need to know about going forward.
>> Right.
Let me ask Mr. Calvert, could you talk about the process here?
>> Yes, under Commission directive 10, there are perhaps two motions that are discussed in directive 10, paragraph E-7 that may supercede the main motion in consideration and would seem to be the sort of thing that might apply here depending on what Commissioner Walther would actually like to do.
In 7-E, Commission provides for a motion to lay a matter over, which is closest to, in common parlance to what would be a motion to table.
More like a motion, almost kill, but not quite.
Under the procedure for a motion to lay a matter over, any such motion shall require a majority vote of at least three members of the Commission, at least three votes would be required for any subsequent motion to take any such matter from the table, and any such motion shall be -- any such matter laid on the table pursuant to these rules should be taken from the table pursuant to these rules at the next subsequent meeting or the matter dies.
That's the motion to lay a matter over.
Also in order would be a motion to postpone consideration of a matter to a date certain.
Which also shall require a majority vote of at least three members of the Commission.
And just to avoid any confusion, we have interpreted the phrase majority vote of at least three members of the Commission meaning that if there is a full Commission, that a vote of four would be required.
If there is not a full Commission, then three would be required.
>> Excuse me.
Voluntary inquiry -- are you saying that the three votes that you mentioned, assume that is a majority, you said three votes to take from the table?
>> Three votes -- where the rule uses the phrase any such motion shall require a majority vote of at least three members of the Commission.
That is for the motion to lay over or for the motion to postpone to a consideration -- 
>> Five -- three to be a majority.
>> Right.
I would point out that a slightly different phrase is used for the subsequent motion to take the matter from the table.
And that phrase is merely at least three votes will be required.
>> Even if it is not a majority.
>> It does not specify majority in the way the other two clauses do. 
>> Commissioner Hunter.
>> I have a question to my colleague, commissioner Walther.
Again, I missed what you said about why you were considering laying it over.
Because I think we did hear from the Office of General Counsel their opinion.
Is there another issue that you wanted to consider?
>> I don't mind getting outvoted, but I think there is more to be talked about in terms of the status issue for me.
Suggested that -- making a motion to postpone consideration of a matter to a date certain, fine with me.
Such motion should require a majority vote of at least three members of the Commission as it -- 
>> So you are making that motion.
Is the date certain that you would be willing to do is the next month's open meeting?
Do you think that is sufficient time?
>> -- 
>> Okay.
There is a motion superceding motion on the table to postpone consideration of a matter to a date certain, and the date certain will be the July open meeting.
>> Madam chair, that motion requires how many votes of six in order to prevail?
>> Four.
>> Four. 
>> Right.
>> Can we take a two minute recess?
I just want to make sure that I understand this and talk briefly with my colleagues if that would be okay?
>> Would you like a copy of the directive -- 
>> If commissioner Walther motion succeeds with four votes, next open meeting agenda, request commissioner Walther asks for further legal guidance.
>> That's correct.
>> And it will be taken up then unless somebody decides as a commission not to bring it up at that time?
>> That's correct.
>> If Commissioner Walther's motion fails by a vote of less than four votes, we will proceed back to the original motion made by Commissioner Weintraub made here today.
>> We are going to take a two minute recess. 


>> Two minute recess is over.
We are back on the agenda.
Last item was a motion by Commissioner Walther to postpone this matter until the next public session in order for him to request legal advice from counsel.
So, with that being the motion, are there questions?
Comments?
Mr. Vice Chair.
>> I will support the motion.
>> Thank you. 
So, with that, we will vote on that motion.
Did you have a comment?
>> I just wanted to say I will also support the motion.
It's my motion that we are delaying, but if my colleague wishes extra time to consider it, I can't recall a time in the history of the agency when we have ever turned anybody down on a request like that.
I will support it.
>> Commissioner Hunter.
>> I will support it as well, only in deference to my colleague to needs some more time.
>> All right.
With that, all of those in favor please indicate by saying aye?
[Chorus of Ayes] 
>> That motion passes unanimously.
So, this item with respect to the notice has been postponed until the July meeting.
Thank you.
Thank you all. 
Thank you. 
All right.
The next item on the agenda is item number IV.
Directive proposed by commissioner Weintraub on the timely resolution of enforcement matters.
Is there any discussion on this matter on the agenda? 
Commissioner Weintraub.
>> Thank you -- 
>> Thank you Mr. Noti.
I appreciate it.
>> He is running from -- 
[laughter]
>> Did I run out of here quickly?
>> No, you did not.
>> Don't let the door slam on the way out.
>> Commissioner Weintraub.
>> Thank you, madam Chair.
A proposal that I brought up to try to find a way to move our enforcement docket quicker.
I think this is a huge problem for the agency.
We currently have 7 O items maybe a couple more on the enforcement docket sitting on Commissioners' desks waiting for decision.
Some of them have been waiting for as long as two or three years.
And I just think that is unacceptable.
I think deadlines are very useful and would be helpful to us.
I first circulated this proposal about five weeks ago.
About a week before the last meeting.
I fully understand with only a week before the last meeting my colleagues wanted more time to think about it and work on it.
And I don't think this ought to be a partisan issue.
I will note that I saw in the newspaper recently a quote from a prominent republican election lawyer, I wish the FEC could figure out a way to move things faster.
Thank you Ms. Mitchell.
I agree with you.
I'm trying.
And I have received some indication from my colleagues that they are interested in working with me on this.
I continue to remain optimistic that we will be able to accomplish something, although I haven't actually seen anything yet.
Which is a little frustrating.
So, I will just give fair notice that I hope we can continue to work on this.
But there is -- as I said, this is a day for irony.
A certain irony in our postponing consideration of a proposal to have more timely consideration and more timely decision-making at the agency.
So, I am going to want to make a motion at the next meeting which gives us another month to perhaps trade some concrete proposals and hopefully get to something that we can all agree on, which I think would be really great.
And good for the agency.
But, you know, at this point, I await your feedback.
>> Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Thank you.
I will also attest to Commissioner Weintraub commitment to get something done.
She has been down to see me to talk about this issue.
>> They have been pleasant conversations.
>> They have.
And I don't say that sarcastically at all.
I would reiterate, this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
We all have an interest in resolving these matters on a more expeditious basis.
I would have liked to have gotten you a draft before now.
I will verify that there is a draft that is being constructed that is being tweaked and hopefully we can get that to you soon.
And see if we can get the process sufficiently far along so that we could resolve this as soon as possible.
I do appreciate the commitment that you have to this issue and the effort that you have put into it.
I think -- I feel optimistic on this.
Maybe optimism is a -- is a foolish virtue on this commission at times, but I think that -- I feel like we'll be able to reach -- 
>> Hold on to that optimism.
I want to hold on to that.
>> We love to hear optimism.
If there aren't any other comments about this -- 
>> Just have one question.
It has -- it was my understanding from the last meeting we were going to refer some of these -- I am not going to belabor the next two on the agenda.
Regs committee as a way to formalize discussion.
That was my understanding.
>> I did not understand that my directive was going to regs committee.
>> Your directive always gets special treatment.
>> Enforcement matter.
Not really -- 
>> Right.
>> That was looked at -- 
>> Enforcement matter, has to do with notice in the enforcement process to respond.
I thought they were all going to be taken up together.
We don't have to.
It was just my understanding.
>> I think the reason we were going to take that one up in that process was, and this is my recollection, that I asked counsel for enforcement, chief of enforcement, to come back to us with some other suggestions because there are other things that might be appropriate to include in that notice to the public.
And that was, think, one of the reasons why that one, as well as -- was maybe going to be dealt with somewhat differently than this one.
>> Happy to move forward on all of them. 
>> As well as information sharing, I think everybody -- I asked for more information about other matters that we might want to look at.
>> Okay.
>> So, okay.
With that, we'll move to item number V.
Which is the next matter on the agenda -- 
>> This is my proposal, on numbers five and six, I would ask that they be held over to the next public meeting as well.
>> Okay.
All right.
And hearing no objection from other Commissioners, we will move on to item number 7.
It is Audit Division recommendation memorandum on Gary Johnson 2012, Inc.
And we have Camilla and Marty Favin from audit here to discuss this matter. 
>> Thank you, madam chair, good afternoon.
>> And Mr. Hintermeister.
>> Before you is the Audit Division recommendation memorandum on Gary Johnson 2012, Inc.
Five findings in the audit.
I will summarize them.
First two findings based on Title 26.
First -- the second addresses the amount of repayment owed to the U.S. treasury, matching funds -- the final three findings in the report title 52, finding 3 is about the spending of general election contributions on primary expenses before the primary election date.
Finding four, failure to correctly report debts and obligations, and finding five, possible prohibited contributions to Gary Johnson 2012, committee's -- Audit Division recommends that the commission approve all five findings and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
>> Yes, please.
>> Thank you.
We would like to request the opportunity to make two corrections to OGC's legal analysis.
If approved, we would add the corrected pages to the document before it is placed on the public record.
First correction is to page 7 of the comments.
It involves the deletion of footnote 12.
Second correction is to page 8 of the comments, and it involves replacing a statutory citation that reads currently 26 USC 9038 A one and two with 26 USC 9033 A one and two.
These corrections do not change the substance of our legal analysis of the ADRM.
>> To make sure I understand which document, is this the one that has memorandum -- 
>> Yes.
>> I just wanted to make sure -- you referred to them as comments.
I want to make sure that I have the right document.
7 and 8, last two pages, two edits that you are speaking of.
>> Yes.
>> I just wanted to make sure that I was on the right document.
>> If I might, I got lost on that one.
>> Can you go back over that?
I was looking at the actual audit report and I couldn't find that.
>> I did the same thing.
>> Sorry about that.
>> Thank you.
>> I have it now.
>> Comments memorandum.
>> Okay.
>> It was the first one was on page 7.
And it is footnote 12, we would be deleting that.
>> Okay.
>> And then the second correction is page 8 in the last paragraph, there is a citation, I guess, it's after the sentence in the letter context, committee agree as a condition of receiving public funds that they will provide evidence of qualified campaign expenses and records, books, other information requested.
Following that sentence, there is a citation to 26 USC section 9038 A one and two.
That is an error.
We would want to correct that to 26 USC section 9033-A one and twoment >> Madam chair.
>> Yes.
>> If I may, I understand the correction of the citation, but the reason for deleting the footnote?
>> The regulation cited pertains to gifts.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Sorry -- 
>> Pertains to gifts.
>> Okay. 
Before going to commissioner --
Mr. Becker is here.
Thank you very much for staying for most of the morning.
Appreciate that.
I know that you were spending the time wisely by tweeting.
So, and I -- Mr. Backer has requested to speak again on this matter and actually technically there is not a provision for him -- 
>> So, yes, Commissioner Hunter.
>> Do you know if Mr. Backer --
does he have a new issue that he would like to bring to our attention?
If so, I would be happy to allow him to address the Commission.
>> Commissioner Weintraub.
>> I would be happy to consider with my colleagues an amendment to our procedures of how we handle audit reports.
I don't like making ad hoc changes.
With all respect to Mr. Backer, would not be in favor of -- 
>> Listening to the public.
>> Allowing this attorney an opportunity that other attorneys don't have.
>> I would grant it to any attorney who is before the agency and wants to address us again.
>> He has written to us numerous times.
I think he has had ample opportunity to make whatever arguments that he wants to make.
As I said, happy to consider now proposals -- I just don't like to do it on an ad hoc basis.
>> Like the petition.
>> Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Thank you.
Going to the substance of what we have here.
I think -- we had an audit hearing on this matter, and finding 5 was one of the subjects of that hearing.
And in this finding relates to the sufficiency of the redacted contracts that the vendor presented to us to prove up a point that they were treating political clients the same as non-political clients and also an affidavit that was submitted as well.
And I forecast there and I still believe that absent any other information indicating that that -- that that affidavit and the redacted contracts are somehow unreliable, I think that is sufficient in this case to establish that there was equal treatment between political and non-political clients, and so I won't be able to support finding 5 in this particular audit. 
>> Other comments?
Issues?
You know, without sort of beating a dead horse, I don't know how to exactly deal with the issue of Mr. Backer's desire to speak.
Given the objection by Commissioner Weintraub and I would like to sort of get a sense of consensus here.
>> Taking something out of order I think could be done without objection.
>> Right.
>> Otherwise, I think it would be appropriate for the Chair to only do it without objection and so while I don't object to having Mr. Backer here, I think there probably needs -- we need to recognize an objection of a Commissioner when -- 
>> And that's my concern.
I wanted to make sure that everybody is -- 
>> Unless someone wants to have a vote to see if there are four votes to waive the rules.
>> That's exactly my concern about this.
>> If someone wants to make a motion -- [Inaudible] -- 
>> So, hearing -- 
>> Go ahead.
>> I don't know how you want to proceed.
I don't mind hearing Mr. Backer.
I -- not that we need a lot of redundancy, but if you think you might have something that might be helpful to us -- 
>> If you would be willing to make the motion.
You could condition the motion on condition upon hearing new information to waive the rules in this case, the way we waive the rules in other circumstances.
My -- I guess my position is a motion to allow him to waive the rules, to take it out of order, it could be conditioned on any condition that the mover would want to make.
>> That would be fine with me.
Whatever you guys want to do.
>> Commissioner Hunter.
>> I didn't hear that as a motion.
>> It was not a motion.
>> I'm happy to so move that we allow the ability of Mr. Backer to address the Commission in a concise manner.
>> All right.
And noting that this does not establish a precedence there is clearly regulations with respect to this that -- as to how we proceed.
So, there is a motion on the table.
All of those in favor indicate by saying aye?
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> All of those opposed?
>> No.
No disrespect -- 
>> Madam secretary, that motion passes with Commissioner Hunter, Commissioner Goodman, Vice Chair Petersen, Chair Ravel, and commissioner Walther voting yes and Commissioner Weintraub voting no.
Mr. Backer, please come forward.
You don't all have to get up.
Just leave one spot for him.
>> I will keep -- I will keep this very brief.
As the committee noted, as I think was partially addressed by the last minute amendments, with respect to finding number 5, the contract -- specifically we pointed out that we didn't know what they were talking about 9038-A a completely different section.
Argue that no adequate authority for that.
Finding 3, Office of General Counsel analysis of Kennedy, in essence, key part we want to highlight middle of page 3, boldface text, their argument would be valid 9038 BA but not with respect 90 -- B 2 payments the situation here.
This is probably a very, very technical matter to draw the Commission's attention to the distinction between the two kinds of repayment obligations, because in the situation we have here, where there is none of the matching -- the federally matched funds were not spent on non-qualified expenses, repayment obligation would not -- excuse me, repayment obligation would not be required under 903AB2.
And as a note, appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I realize it is out of turn.
I would suggest as we have laid out in our submissions, there is a right of committees to be presented at this point, new arguments brought forward in the memorandums.
That's it unless anyone has a question.
>> Any questions?
Hearing none.
Thank you very much.
Is there any further discussion, questions for staff?
If not, is there a motion.
>> >> Madam Chair, I would be happy to move findings one through four.
>> Okay.
>> And then -- 
>> That sounds good.
>> Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Therefore, with respect to Audit Division recommendation memorandum on Gary Johnson 2012, Inc., set forth agenda document 15-28-A, I move approval of findings one, two, three, and four.
>> Any questions, comments about the motion?
>> Authorize counsel to make the modifications to the legal memorandum that were discussed here at the table.
>> Okay.
Hearing none, all of those in favor please indicate by saying aye?
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> Madam secretary, commissioner Walther, you voted aye.
That passes unanimously.
Is there another motion?
Commissioner Weintraub.
>> I move approval of the recommendation for finding five in agenda document number 15-28-A, Audit Division recommendation memorandum on Gary Johnson 2012, Inc.
>> Any questions, comments about the motion?
All of those in favor please indicate by saying aye?
>> [Chorus of Ayes]
>> All of those opposed?
>> No.
>> No.
>> Madam secretary that motion fails with commissioner Weintraub, Walther, and Ravel voting yes, commissioner Goodman, Hunter, and Vice Chair Petersen voting no. 
All right.
Thank you very much.
Thank you Mr. Backer. 
The next item is item number 8, proposed final audit report on the Oakland Democratic Party. 
We have again Mr. Hintermeister, Paula -- and Douglas Kodish here to discuss the matter.
Thank you for spending all day with us. 
>> Good morning, madam Chair and Commissioners.
The red line version of the proposed final audit report for the Oakland County democratic party with edits circulated yesterday.
We find no factual errors in the changes that were made and find them to be acceptable.
>> Just a comment.
>> I want to thank the audit staff for accommodating the edits that we proposed and working with us.
To give the Oakland County democratic party credit for having had legal position in this.
It ultimately was not acceptable or accepted by the Commission and I wanted to give them credit that these were not nefarious acts.
They had a definition of event.
It didn't carry the day at the Commission, I wanted to give them credit for that.
>> Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
Hearing none, is there a motion?
Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Thank you.
With respect to proposed final audit report Oakland County democratic party, A-12-02, set forth in agenda document number 15-28-B, I move approval.
>> All right.
Any questions about the motion?
Didn't say -- 
>> Blood sugar is getting a little low.
>> We will go get some candy for you.
>> Modify my motion to indicate agenda document we are speaking of 15-29-B.
>> All right.
>> Thank you.
Okay.
All in favor please indicate by saying aye?
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> Madam secretary, that motion passes unanimously. 
The next -- thank you very much.
Appreciate your work on this. 
Next item is item number 9, motion to authorize the publication of and expenses for a Forty Year Report.
Memorandum from Commissioner Walther, Commissioner Walther would you like to give a presentation with respect to this?
>> I don't think a presentation is necessary.
Remarks as part of the motion.
>> Okay.
>> I think everybody knows what it is all about.
>> Okay.
Any other comments?
Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Thank you.
I support this effort.
I think ever since the Commission has been existence we have issue these reports every 10 years.
The last 10 years have been an eventful 10 years in the Commission and the courts and those developments deserve to be documented and publicly available.
Our division that will be tasks with this and I have every confidence in their abilities to do justice in making this a very worthwhile report for us to read.
The only thing I would note I know that information division, which does an excellent job on many FRONTS is nearing the thick of the season for the educational conferences that they put on.
Not only here in Washington, D.C., but also throughout the country, later this year, and I know that they -- they have a lot on their table and I think we have to be sensitive to Tthe -- what they have presently on their plate in terms of the timing of this report and that this be given the appropriate priority relative to all of the other obligations that they have and, you know, certainly we want this as soon as possible, but I think we just acknowledging the reality of the many things that they -- 
many balls that they have up in the air right now.
>> Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
And I endorse exactly what you said.
I support doing a report, however, there is a concern about the staff and resources of the information commission, information division given in particular, as you mentioned, the number of really big conferences that they're working on that are coming up in the early fall.
So, as long as this Commission is patient, because I would say there is a lot of people who are part of the regulated community and others who are deserving of getting the best information from us at those conferences.
I would say that those would be priorities and that we will go forward as expeditiously as possible on this report, assuming there is agreement on the Commission.
Thank you. 
So, hearing no other comments, all of those in favor of the motion to authorize the report please indicate.
>> We need a motion first, please.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Move what I said in that document -- I can read it if you want.
Approve the publication of a Forty Year Report. 
>> Thank you.
>> Authorize expenses necessary to do that.
>> All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> All right.
Madam secretary, that was unanimous.
>> Presumably we would post it on the web site for those who refer to access information that way.
>> I'm certain of that.
Now there were a number of members of the Commission who have points of personal privilege and would like to speak to various issues.
We will start at that end of the table and come around.
Commissioner Goodman.
>> Thank you, madam chair.
Like to recognize that we have lost a colleague at the FEC.
Michael Flemming became an employee of the FEC in July of 1980.
And officially retired due to his illness in August of 2014.
He was a data coding specialist for 34 years at this agency.
He was known as a valued professional and colleague here at the FEC.
And I'm told that his colleagues downstairs particularly will remember Mike as he was known as the highlight of office humor and as a good person.
Mike loved his family dearly and spent a lot of time with siblings and other relatives.
Also enjoyed playing baseball and played every year with a local league.
He loved New Orleans where he traveled often for many events and with friends, and as we have done in the past, I would like to recognize Michael.
He will be missed and remembered fondly by many of his colleagues here.
>> Thank you very much.
Commissioner Hunter.
>> Thank you, commissioner Goodman for paying tribute to him.
I would like to note that I have two members of my staff leaving me at the same time.
Steve, maybe you could come work with me.
First one already left.
He started a new job this past Monday, and that's Eric brown.
He has been with me since day one here at the FEC.
So for almost seven years.
And he was the longest-serving EA on the 9th floor.
He was a valuable member of my staff and I think to all of us, the whole time he was here, he worked on several different regs and tons of AOs and -- 
having worked here in the Commission years ago where he originally met his wife, Catherine, working in the public records division at the time and then Eric came back again to the FEC where he worked in OGC for commissioner mason and then after he left the FEC last time, he departed to work at the Republican National Committee where I got to know him.
We worked in the counsel's office together and then -- and then he came back and was an excellent help to all of us.
I know he is having a great time on the counsel of the Cruz campaign.
Rebecca Miller -- also leaving.
Prior to law school, Rebecca worked for election law group with former commissioner Michael toner.
Graduated from William and Mary law school.
And while she was in law school, worked at the RNC council's office.
We got to know her a little bit through her time there.
She is leaving the FEC to join Americans for prosperity foundation as an associate counsel.
As you may know, Americans for prosperity foundation, dedicated to educating Americans about the importance of free markets and how those principles affect everyday life.
Rebecca has been giving all of us, especially me, excellent legal advice and I will sorely miss her.
She has become a very good friend.
Thank you.
I'm miss you both.
>> Thank you very much.
Commissioner Weintraub.
>> Thank you.
I want to thank both of my colleagues for their comments and join in the sentiments that were expressed.
I may know Eric longer than you do.
Eric and Rebecca are both lovely people and I wish them well.
And of course it is very sad news about Flemming.
I wanted to acknowledge sad news.
I didn't want the meeting to end without our acknowledging the extremely disturbing and sad events that took place last night in Charleston at the Emanuel church where nine people were gunned down in a Bible study meeting in their church.
Apparently in an act of racial hatred. 
I know that everyone in the building joins me in saying that our hearts go out to the city of Charleston and our thoughts and prayers are with the church and all of its members and in particularly the victims of this horrific crime and I was pleased to note that they do appear to have a suspect in custody.
Hopefully that chapter is over, but extremely disturbing and sad event. 
>> Thank you for mentioning that.
That was quite an emotional event for this country.
I want to end on a personal privilege of good news, nice news.
We have EA working at the FEC for Commissioner Walther, who is a wonderful person, but not only that, she is about to go to her hometown, which is Houma, Louisiana, leaving tomorrow to receive the Trail Blazer award, given to the first African American lawyer from that town.
They are obviously very proud of her, of the local daughter of the town and we're very proud of her as well.
And, finally, item number 10, Mr. Staff director, are there any management or administrative matters for the commission to discuss today?
>> There are no such matters.
>> All right.
Thank you very much.
This meeting is adjourned. 
And we will -- we have a EKSextensive executive session agenda, three matters.
I would request that we try to reconvene at 2:00.
Thank you. 




Event is not active
Copyright �2015 
Show/Hide Header