This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on October 1, 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.


>> Everybody thank you very much for all being here. The open meeting of the Federal Election Committee for Thursday, October 1st, will come to order. We have some late submitted documents this morning Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Thank you Madam Chair I move we waive the Les of submitted documents considering the following No. 15-15-1-A, 15-50-B, 15-50-B and 15-52-A. 
>> Thank you.
>> Are there any questions, comments about the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor please indicate by saying eye 
(Chorus of ayes).
hank you, madam secretary that passes unanimously. 
I understand that the requester, Mr. Eric Zolt in the repledge advisory opinion matter is on the phone and has to leave early to teach a class. 
So if there's no objection, without objection, I will take his request up first for discussion. Is that acceptable to everybody? All right. 
So we will move to the Repledge matter. 
And the first item then is Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-08 repledge. Today we have Theo will you tell us and Amy Rothstein in the back there from OGC here to discuss the matter. 
And as I indicated, we have the requester, Eric Zolt, on the phone. 
Mr. Zolt are you there.
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Yes I am and thank you madam for the opportunity to participate.
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you for being here, welcome. So staff, Mr. Will you tell us, are you ready to make a presentation? Thank you.
>> THEODORE LUTZ: Thank you good morning Commissioners 51-A and B include two draft responses to a Draft Advisory Opinion by Repledge.
>> ANN RAVEL: Can you speak maybe a little more I'm verybody can hear you.
>> THEODORE LUTZ: Repledge is a for-profit corporation --
>> ANN RAVEL: It may not be on can people in the back hear okay.
>> THEODORE LUTZ: It proposes to establish a web based platform through which an individual can pledge funds to a Federal candidate and designated charity to receive the funds if the pledge is matched by pledges made by supporters of opposing candidate both drafts conclude that the propose is admissible under the contract though reasoning differs the Commission received one comment under the request. Thank you.
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you very much. Are there any comments, questions with regard to this matter? 
>> Can you just summarize for us any differences. 
>> LEE GOODMAN: Repledge came to the Commission and sought an advisory opinion requests several years ago. Have there been any significant changes in the requests between the last time Repledge was before us and this one? Since I'm new I wasn't here for the prior one.
>> THEODORE LUTZ: I would defer to the requester for factual changes. But factually the propose is quite similar. 
There are a few questions that they didn't ask this . But since Repledge came to us in 2012, the Commission has issued a few advisory opinions on these types of issues. 
>> LEE GOODMAN: Those opinions include for example crowd pack and skimmer hat.
>> THEODORE LUTZ: Yes.
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Madam Chair can I speak.
>> ANN RAVEL: Please respond thank you.
>> ERIZ ZOLT: The only real substitute -- substantive difference is we clarified the organizational structure of Repledge when it's going to be organized now it will be as something called a California B organization, a for-profit organization. 
In the prior request, Commissioner Goodman we left open the possibility of it being a not-for-profit organization to do this. And the decision really rests primarily on where we think we can get the better funding opportunities to move the platform forward. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Are there any other questions, comments, Commissioner.
>> Thank you I have a couple of questions for Professor Zolt hi this is he will ln Winetrope.
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Good to talk to you again.
>> Good to talk to you. Let me state at the outset that I hear where you're coming from and I share a lot of oncerns, I think a lot of people in this country certainly judging by every poll that I've seen are really fed up and disgusted with our campaign finance system. And I think it is laudable. And I appreciate the creativity and effort that went into trying to come up with innovative ways to try and address some of the concerns that people are expressing out there about the way we fund our campaigns. 
So I appreciate that and I hear you. But I do have some questions and concerns about this particular propose. 
Part of it is just practically speaking I'm not entirely clear on how this is going to work. 
So people will pledge a certain amount of money and indicate which candidate that want that money to go to or which charity they would want it to go to can you choose more than one.
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Just one charity.
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: That makes it a little simpler and based on how many people picked candidate A and how many people picked candidate B some or all of each individual's pledge will go to the candidate or the charity of their choice. But how will people know how will they be able to verify that it's working the way it's designed to work and that to the extent that their money ot going to the candidate of their choice, that an equal amount of money is not going to the other guy? 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Commissioner, I understand your concern. The key factor is we plan to have what we call fund drives and those would be 7 to 10 days and the transparency would be clear on the web platform that what you would have is a little thermometer on each side saying how it goes up. 
And to get into the fund drives, you would have to register as a member and give credit card information. Just in the same way when you go to a hotel and they put a hold on your card for a certain amount, the same thing would happen in the Repledge situation. Then at the end of the fund drive whether it's a week or ten days the results would be posted and you could see exactly how much was raised by each of the candidates then you'll get an information for both the amount that's a charitable contribution and the amount that went to the candidate. 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: But the information that will be disclosed it will be disclosed in bulk, right? You're not going to list the individual Joe Jones is $300 is going here and $200 is going there. 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Right. That's correct. That what you would see is the total amount raised. You wouldn't see who the other participants are in the fund drive. 
o people just have to trust that you've got your system set up right and there aren't any glitches in it in order to feel comfortable with this I guess. 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Yes. 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: And please don't take my questions the wrong way. I know that you have had a long and distinguished career in the private sector, the public sector and academia and I do not in any way wish to suggest that I have concerns about the way you're going to run this. However, we don't give advisory -- our advisory opinions are about requests, not requesters. 
And if we approve a certain approach, then other people can follow the same approach. And I am a little bit concerned that this type of approach, because basically the money is going to go into a black box and then people will be told, oh, your contribution was matched by somebody else's contribution so we took all the money that you would have given to candidate A and gave it to the charity of your choice I mean basically people are going to be operating on trust at that point there will be no way for them to actually verify that. And I think in somebody else's hands, that, you know, that could turn out to be problematic. 
So I do have that concern. 
nd the other concern that I have is what's to stop somebody from being a little mischievous with your proposals, particularly somebody who has got enough money to burn that they don't mind making some extra contributions to charity so they say, okay, I'm going to pledge the max to my candidate knowing in doing so I'm going to divert that same amount of money from the other candidate and then after okay so the money will go to charity but after the fund drive closes I'll just go ahead and make my contribution to my preferred candidate anyways so that somebody who thought that money was being diverted from the system is really just diverting their own money from the system and the other guy is out there making the contribution anyway. 
Do you know what I'm saying? 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Yes, I do. And we do not have a way to prevent people who have made contributions subject to the condition it goes to the charity then to make contributions outside. And the only limitation is the standard FEC limitation and the amounts individuals can contribute to a campaign. 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: If you have repeated fund drives, can somebody participate in more than -- more than once? 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: As long as they didn't use up their . 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: All right. And maybe this is -- maybe I'm just too cynical. But I could envision somebody just being vermis chief vows about this and saying okay gd -- mischievous to whom the money didn't matter that much and there seem to be a lot of people in the system who have the money I'm going to go into this fund drive and see if I can divert $2700 from the opposition candidate and go into the next drive see if I can divert some more money and at the end of the day I'm going to make my own contribution anyway and potential give to the -- potentially give to super packs as well my concern here is it's potentially subject to manipulation. That it is kind of a black box exactly how the calculations are being made and whether it's actually following the program that it's supposed to follow. 
And as I said, it's not you, professor. I'm kind of worried about the precedent. 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Can I add one more thing? We did discuss having an accounting firm audit the results. So that we would in effect get confirmation of our approach from an independent auditor. I don't think that would solve all of your concerns. But I think it would solve at least some of them. 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: That is exactly right. That olve some but not all of my concerns in this instance. But since it isn't incorporated in any event into the facts of this request, it wouldn't -- it wouldn't affect the precedent that we would be setting. 
So you might say, you know, just to show what standup guys we are, we're going to make sure that we have this and so everybody can be comfortable. But what does that mean for the next person who comes down the road? 
I guess my -- the drafts, both I think, acknowledge that your request is in some sense is similar to some requests that have come in and been granted in the interim since your last request but in some sense it's different. And I decided there was a draft that said these differences are material and therefore the answer sadly is no. 
I decided not to go public with that because it was pretty clear to me it wasn't going to get four votes. So why bother. But I think it really does come down to that whether one thinks the difference is between your propose and the prior proposes are material or not. 
And I think -- proposals are material or not and given the concerns I have about potential for -- given the way it operates where people give up control over how their money is going to be spent they have parameters they know it will go one of two places but how much goes here and how much goes there and whether any money at all goes andidate or charity is really out of the contributor's hands at the point they make the pledge. And for me that's a material difference. So I don't think I'm going to be able to -- here we go, Professor, I couldn't support you last time. And I guess I'm still not going to be able to support the request. 
But as I said I really do appreciate the creativity and thought that went into the proposal. 
I'll kind of throw out one policy thought for you, this doesn't affect my legal analysis. 
But the -- as I said, I hear the concern about how much money is being spent on campaigns and how the money is being spent on as you say incessant TV spots negative campaigns and unwanted political mailers. But I would just suggest to you to maybe think about unintended consequences. 
Your proposal is going to -- if it works the way it appears to be intended is going to divert money, small dollar, hard dollar contributions from candidates who are the most transparent and accountable players in the political system. 
And could have the unintended consequence of making those candidates more reliant on outside spending groups, who are less transparent, less accountable, sometimes rely on dark money, often are dependent on very large donors. don't know if you could convince the billionaire funders of super packs to divert their millions to charity in lieu of the super packs they are supporting or the other outside spending groups but I would urge you to think creatively about other aspects of the problem that I think are concerning to the folks who are concerned about how our money and politics system is functioning. 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Commissioner, can I respond that? 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: Absolutely. 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: We were trying to estimate what percentage of contributors would use Repledge. And even on an optimistic assumptions, it's still less than 1% of all small contributors. So I'm less concerned about completely dominating the market. And soaking up all of that money for charitable purposes.
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: Well you never know you might be more successful than you think. But I appreciate the comment. 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: And in answer to your second point, we actually have discussed having a Repledge limited to super packs. 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: That would be fun. The only other comment I have for you, Professor, is that the Commission is holding a conference in San Diego at the end of the month and then some of us are going to be at a t UCLA at the end of October. 
So I hope you'll stop by. And I would look forward to meeting you in person and talking more about it. 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: That would be terrific. 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: Thank you, professor.
>> ANN RAVEL: Are there other comments? Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Thank you I'm prepared to support the proposal I supported it last time and I'm here to support it again. We have two different drafts, the draft I support is draft A. When we considered similar proposals in the contribution processing platform world which we've had an uptick in in recent years the two main considerations that we've dealt with is one is the requester providing a service to the contributor or to a political committee. 
If it's to a contributor we generally approve provided that also the contribution processing component of the proposal is similar to other services that used commonly to move money around in the contemporary economy so if those two conditions are met then we typically have approved the proposal that's been before the Commission and I think that Draft A most faithfully applies a precedence that we have set forth in prior advisory opinions when we have considered contribution processing platforms. I view this again through a very ubric. What the policy implications of this proposal might be both good and bad I'm agnostic regarding at least with respect to how I'm going to vote on this. And I think also if we start going through worst case scenarios with every proposal we have especially on the technology side we're going to likely stifle technological innovation. I think we can't be blind to potential unintended consequences but we also can't be paralyzed by them either and I think this proposal fits squarely within other precedence that we have approved and for that reason I'll be prepared to support this proposal, as well. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Are there other comments about this? Commissioner Walter. You don't? Commissioner Walter, did you want to speak? No, go ahead. He's deferring to you. 
>> Professor, really along the lines of Commissioner Winetraub I'm Steve wall they are but I wouldn't be supporting this -- Walther and I do applaud your effort here but for those reasons and I'm concerned about the role of corporations really having any role in allocating and providing money through the system. I think we have enough corporate activity at this point anyway and any possible way the corporation is in touch and has the money and has a system whereby it can go one way or the other, I'm just concerned about the implications of that f the good faith in this case whether there could be some abuse along the line. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Commissioner Goodman? 
>> LEE GOODMAN: Yeah, I guess I want to associate myself with the comments of the Vice Chair and just that this is another one of these technological platforms where people choose to enter it. They have voluntary choice. And as the Professor says, a very small percentage of people may so choose. I would imagine that people who would choose to enter this platform are going to be largely motivated by their interest in charitable giving. But I defer to the choice of people to purchase that service offered on that platform when they pledge their money. The notion we should somehow anticipate or presume the notion of abuse in a request I think varies from what our duties are under the advisory opinion process. We accept the representations made. 
We assume that the person will abide by representations made. I think everyone here has said they trust Professor Zolt to ministerially account for and handle the members' money according to the rules of the platform. So anticipating that I don't like this platform because somebody else may have a similar platform seek protection of this advisory opinion and then defraud people or cheat by not accurately accounting for that think denies Professor Zolt the advisory opinion that he is due at Repledge based on a good faith representation that he is going to account for the money accurately and the members will get the service that they chose to purchase. So I think we need to defer to people who choose to participate in these types of platforms. they get to do so nationally across geographic boundaries because of the power of the Internet and I think it's folly for us to begin second guessing what other people might do and how they may not handle other peoples' money appropriately when this requester is going to do it appropriately so I intend to support Draft A for that reason. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Are there other comments by Commissioners? Well then let me weigh in. I know you're all waiting with bayeded breath to hear my views on this I also agree with the comments made by the Vice Chair with respect to this. I think that what you are proposing, Professor, is a creative approach and responds to what we see about money and politics and arms race and it's being suggested in a very salutary way and while I do understand that there could be some ramifications of everything, we all know that every campaign finance issue has some ramifications that someone might exploit at some point. But here Repledge is essentially acting like a bill ith the bonus of redirecting the money potentially to charities which are all salutary purposes. And so I favor them. 
However, for the concerns because of the concerns raised by Commissioner Walther, I cannot agree with Draft A. And I support Draft B. And the reason that I do not support Draft A is I feel it's an expansion and while it's true we look at just what's before us, in terms of AOs, we all know that other groups do look to these AOs to determine whether or not they are going to be in compliance. And the language in Draft A that seems to expand the corporate exemption I think is problematic. And for that reason, I'm going to be supporting only Draft B. And if there's a possibility, I know we came out with these drafts just yesterday. If there's some possibility that we can reach some kind of an agreement either in the next few weeks or maybe not today but at some other point, I'm very happy to work with your offices to try to find some mutual agreement on this matter. 
>> I have a --
>> LEE GOODMAN: I have a question when is the deadline for giving Professor Zolt his answer? 
>> THEODORE LUTZ: October 19th.
>> LEE GOODMAN: We don't have another public meeting scheduled until when? 
he 29th I believe.
>> LEE GOODMAN: I don't know that it takes a public meeting but I think we ought to consider that and maybe alert Professor Zolt perhaps he would be willing to grant an extension. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Yes Professor Zolt let's just ask you that right now. 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Sure I'm perfectly willing to grant an extension. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Great, thank you. So that would be until when? 
>> We can work it out to make it after the next open meeting.
>> ANN RAVEL: All right.
>> LEE GOODMAN: It may not make the next public meeting but I think we ought to at least allow ourselves that much time. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Correct. Okay. Yes, Mr. Vice Chair.
>> MATTHEW PETERSEN: Thank you, Madam Chair I think if there's a possibility of putting together a yes draft I think we need to work towards that end to see if there's a way that we can throw a needle in the way that's comfortable for all of us so I'll forward to continuing to working with you all on this as well if we both agree at nd of the day that this is a permissible proposal, then I think we need to do all we can to make sure that Mr. Zolt has the protection of advisory opinion so I look forward to working towards that end.
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you Mr. Vice Chair, I agree with that. 
So thank you, Professor Zolt for participating today. And the office of policy of the office of general counsel will be in touch with you. 
>> ERIZ ZOLT: Thank you very much.
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is Item No. 1. Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-7. Hillary for America. I understand that requester's counsel is not going to appear today. But we have Joanna Waldstreicher with us from the Office of General Counsel. And Bob Knop I know you're hiding back there. Robert Knop to discuss the matter. 
>> JOANNA WALDSTREICHER: Good morning Commissioners, agenda document 15-52-A is a draft response to submitted by Hillary for America. Hillary for America is the authorized campaign committee of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the request asks whether attendees at some of the committee's campaign events may pay for their own food beverages and valet parking without those payments being considered in-kind contributions to the committee raft concludes because the attendees wouldn't be making the payments on behalf of the committee the payments for food beverages and valet parking wouldn't constitute in-kind contributions to the committee. We did not receive any comments on the request or on the draft. And if the draft is approved, we would ask for authority to make any necessary technical changes.
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you are there any questions or comments for counsel? Hearing none, is there a motion? Commissioner Winetraub.
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: Not a motion.
>> ANN RAVEL: I understand. 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: I wanted to see if anybody else wanted to talk. 
I had been hoping actually that our friends -- our friend Mr. Elias would be here because I did want to engage with him a little bit on the facts here. 
I'm not exactly -- not 100% clear on what kinds of venues he has in mind where there's food available but it's not part of the event. I mean one can imagine a wide range of different scenarios. 
There's the hotdog scenario in the request. I think I can do that even better. One can imagine somebody on their way to a campaign speech or whatever where they are not expecting any food and they stop off at a coffee shop et a to-go cup. My colleague -- like my colleague has sitting next to him and walk into a campaign holding their own coffee and I can't imagine anybody would ever imagine that that was on the Commission campaign if someone brings their own coffee into what is a campaign event and I doubt anybody would ask that question. On the other hand of the spectrum -- on the other end of the spectrum there's somebody else picking up the costs of the -- catering costs of the event and I would hope that everybody would see that as a contribution. It might be okay depending on what it is and where the event is. A home exception or certainly with certain beverages. This seems to not be -- 
(Garbled audio).
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: So there appears to be plainly not acceptable or at least subject to limits and also what appears to be unquestionably okay and then a vast amount of space in between. What's significant to me about this request posits they will be buying their own food and beverages they will be paying for their own parking. 
I would -- you know, again, since people -- other folks can rely on these opinions to the extent that they are in a materially indistinguishable situation, that's the precedent that we would be setting here that people buy their own. 
think it would be a very different scenario if one person was proposing to buy the food for themselves an attendee or not. 
One could envision, for example, a campaign event set up in a hotel in one room and in the room next door there's a hospitality suite set up by a sympathetic super pack. And the sympathetic super pack has got all sorts of paraphernalia and food and drinks and all sorts of other things and they say -- have a big sign out front saying, oh, you know, we stop by here and pick up some food and then you know take it with you. You don't have to stay here. You can take it across the hall with you or next door. That would be a very different scenario. 
And perhaps you know different commissions would have different perspectives on this. 
But I want to be very clear that that's not what we're being asked. And since I plan to vote for this AO that is not what I am here approving. 
We've got very specific facts that are before us about people paying their own way basically, buying their own food and beverages and paying with their own -- for their own parking and I don't see that as a problem under these circumstances. So I'm going to support the draft. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Are there other comments, questions? No? If not is there a motion.
hank you Madam Chair in our consideration of advisory opinion request 2015-07 Hillary for America, I move approval of agenda document No. 15-52-A.
>> ANN RAVEL: All right. Any questions? All those in favor please -- sorry, madam secretary. 
>> It would be authorizing OGC to make any technical informing edits.
>> ANN RAVEL: Yes thank you. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye. 
(Chorus of ayes).
>> ANN RAVEL: Madam secretary that motion passes unanimously. 
The next item on the agenda is Item 3. Agenda document 15-49-A. And it is my memorandum to the Commission on prohibiting foreign national contributions in ballot initiatives. 
And a request that there be some action by the Office of General Counsel with respect to this issue. 
Some people -- and we've had this discussion in the past at the Commission level -- don't believe that foreign money in state and local elections that are ballot initiative campaigns is a serious problem. 
But I do. 
Because I think it threatens the overall integrity lections throughout this country. 
I mean, think of it, do we want Vladimir Putin or drug cartels to be influencing American elections? The Commission shouldn't. 
That's why I have asked to move but I think now Commissioner Winetraub may actually make the motion to direct the Office of General Counsel to draft a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to define the term election for the purposes of the ban on foreign national contributions and expenditures to include state and local ballot measures. 
Congress has acted to include ballot measures in its expanded and strengthened ban on foreign political contributions in BICRA in 2002. The foreign contribution ban had previously only applied to candidate elections. Elections to any political office or to select candidates for political office. 
And it was changed to prohibit foreign money in a Federal, state or local election. 
In a recent enforcement case, Mind Geek USA incorporated the Commission failed to proceed with an investigation in a case where the facts showed that a foreign national contributed funds to a Los Angeles ballot measure. 
This Commission has the responsibility to enforce the law. 
nd Congress has directed the Commission to keep foreign money out of local, state and Federal elections. And that's why I'm asking today, my fellow commissioners, to open a rulemaking to revise our erroneous regulations to protect ballot measures. 
Congress' decision to expand the ban to reach all elections requires the Commission to act to protect ballot measures from foreign influence. 
The Commission should conformities regulations to the statute. And enforce the foreign money ban. 
In my home state of California, where Mind Geek arose, measures are often placed on the ballot to influence turnout for candidate elections. Both the number of voters and their idealogy. Huge sums of money are spent running advertisements and sending mail to increase turnout of some voters and depress turnout of others. 
And some of those ads directly relate to candidates running on the same ballot. Shaping the views of the elector ate on one or more candidates. 
So the impact of state and local ballot measure spending on candidates can be intentional and direct. 
Moreover, as I've said many times before and in my statement on Mind Geek ballot measures are a means for citizens to directly participate in democracy. Speaking on issues that impact them, such as land use, school olicy, policing water property taxes or amending the state constitution. 
Foreign governments, foreign businesses, and foreign olgarchs should have no say in our land use policy. 
The Federal Election Committee was established to protect the integrity of elections. Part of doing so is ensuring that our elections are free from foreign influence. 
So without objection, I'm asking -- there's someone in the audience here today who introduced himself this morning. His name is tomorrow Meyers he's the general counsel for AIDS HealthCare Foundation, which was one of the groups that was involved in the ballot initiative to pass the safer sex in the adult film industry act. 
He talked about the harm caused by foreign money infiltrating American elections. He came all the way from California. And would like to speak to us today. And so I'm asking without objection such as what we have done previously in the hearing with Dan Backer when it was not part of our rules but we allowed him to speak, I'm asking if he can speak to the Commission on this issue? Is there any objection? No? So Mr. Meyers, please come forward. Thank you. Thank you for coming. 
>> Good morning. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Wait a second, I think you need to n. 
>> Is that better? 
>> ANN RAVEL: Yeah do you want to move chairs? 
>> Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you and good morning, again I appreciate the ability to speak with you my name is Tom Meyers I'm general counsel and chief of public affairs for the AIDS health foundation. It's the largest nonprofit in the country for AIDS I'm also the counsel for the initial ballot measure components which we call measure B out in Los Angeles. And our experience with measure B is I think it shows the need for what determines -- what the Chairman is proposing measure B was to protection the public health to help protect the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. And as we have seen from our experience with AIDS, with ebola, with other types of infectious diseases, infectious diseases don't respect statelines, they don't respect boundaries. 
So decisions that are made in LA County with respect to public health and disease infection have implications outside of LA County outside of California and across the country. 
And so the issue, while uniquely local to LA County, does have a national component to it when you're talking about protecting the public health. As stated before, foreign corporations simply have no interest in the public f the United States only in their own profits. 
For those reasons this is a common sense measure and I urge the Commission to adopt it. It's just really that simple. And I appreciate your time.
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you very much Mr. Meyers. All right. Are there other comments? 
>> LEE GOODMAN: Just a question. To file a complaint about this matter with the California fair practices Commission.
>> Yes it has been filed and we're examining all avenues I would say not every state has such a mechanism so in those states that don't have that this is equally important.
>> LEE GOODMAN: In California the foreign spending in refer ren da elections is illegal.
>> I believe that it is, yes and again we have filed a complaint.
>> LEE GOODMAN: Was there a prior complaint filed in this case -- was there a prior compliant --
>> Prior to the filing of this? I don't know the chronology. I know that we have pursued both areas. I don't know that --
>> LEE GOODMAN: You're not aware though there was a prior complaint about Manwin and it's involvement in the referendum election.
here's currently a complaint.
>> LEE GOODMAN: You have one now.
>> I apologize I just simply don't know about a prior one.
>> LEE GOODMAN: Thank you. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Any other questions Mr. Vice Chair.
>> MATTHEW PETERSEN: Thank you. The Chair began her statement by questioning the motives of I and a couple of my colleagues saying we don't think it's a problem that foreign nationals may be involved in ballot measure initiatives and I think that's loot Chris. Our -- ludicrous our consideration here is not whether we think it's a good or bad thing. We don't have some sort of a moral warrant to promote the good and stamp out the bad. We are the Federal Election Committee that has a limited jurisdiction. 
The question that we had to consider in the Mind Geek case was one that the Commission has considered on many times before. That's whether our ballot initiatives, elections, under the Federal election campaign act. And when you go through the definition of what an election is, it's very specific that it's about candidate elections. It's -- when we write our rules, we can write rules to flesh out a statutory scheme if there are gaps that are ogical outgrowths of the statutory scheme the definition of election doesn't have a gap within it that we can really fill in and say this is -- that we can import in this notion that ballot initiatives are part of elections. 
Do I think that it would be a problem if we did? No, I don't. I think Congress has that authority. 
Frankly I think if Congress wanted to do that, I would not object to that. 
If we -- if there were a proposal to even include a legislative recommendation to Congress, I might support it. I would have to see what the language looked like. I would want to examine that. 
But I just wanted to spell at the outset that the notion that it's because I think I or any of the colleagues of mine who voted the way we did in Mind Geek that that's a reflection of our insusience in foreign money at ballot initiatives at the state level is completely a false one so I wanted to state that outfront. 
As to the modified language on the foreign national ban, I've looked through it, I just don't see how that expanded to ballot initiatives. 
It was never discussed in Congress. The language in the foreign national ban if you can point to me where a nitiative is now tucked into the definition of an election with respect to the foreign national ban I would be open to that I know my colleague Commissioner Winetraub has done a compare and contrast between the language before and after and how it could be read into that. I just don't see it. And frankly we had a case a couple of years ago, the Blooming case in the DC circuit which is one of the only cases that touches upon the foreign national ban. And this is obviously a post BCRA case and talks about I'll just quote it says notably 441 EA which is the old code provision it's now the foreign national ban is now in Section 30-1-21. 
It says notably Section 441 EA as we interpret it doesn't restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues restrains them only to activity closely tied to voting process providing money for candidate for political party or spending money to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate. 
So when we approach these issues, I have to approach it as what authority do I have? How -- do I have the ability to write rules? Do I have the ability to rewrite a statute? On the basis of what I think is good policy. 
And in the case of defining an election, I don't see a gap in the statute that allows me to rewrite what as put into it. Like I said if Congress wanted to do it I appreciate that you felt strongly enough about this that you wanted to come and express what the -- what was in California and the concerns it raised and I do not -- I know how sincerely felt that they are. And like I said I am not at all opposed to the concerns that you have and the red flag that you have raised about foreign influence in state and local ballot initiatives. This comes down to what can I as a Commissioner do? And at this point I think that this is in Congress' court. And if there were some effort to put together a legislative recommendation, I would be more than happy to take a look at that. 
Because like I said I think Congress does have the authority to expand the definition of election if they saw fit. 
But until they do that I just as a Commissioner I don't believe I have the authority and that I would be acting outside the scope of my authority to try to redefine the definition of an election where I just don't see that we have a gap that we're able to fill. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Commissioner Winetraub.
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: Thank you Madam Chair. 
I don't want to impute anybody's motives. 
>> MATTHEW PETERSEN: Just to be clear I wasn't ou did. You said colleagues --
>> ANN RAVEL: I didn't say colleagues. I didn't say here. I have it written down that's not how I said it.
>> Go ahead say it again.
>> MATTHEW PETERSEN: If I misinterpreted. Who were you referring to. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Let's not get into petty bickering, go ahead. 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: Sorry I shouldn't have started with that sentence. Although I don't mean to impute anybody's motives, I understand the legal analysis that my colleagues went through in the Mind Geek case obviously I disagreed with it, I came to a different conclusion. 
The only thing I would slightly modify in what the Chair said originally when she said our regulations are erroneous, I believe that our regulations can be read to include the conduct that was at issue in Mind Geek and that's why I voted the way I did. 
I think that Congress, Congress changed the law. They used to say -- the law used to say that sorry I want to find the exact language so I'm precise about this. That it's -- sorry. Okay before the bipart isn't Reform Act it -- in connection with an election to any political office. Plainly limited to elections for political office lections. 
But they changed the words. They changed the words of the law. And they changed it to read, in connection with a Federal, state or local election. 
We have a letter from a member of Congress that we received just yesterday late in the day, Congressman Brady saying he reads that change that way to be more encompassing than the language it was before why take out the phrase for political office if you meant to continue to limit it to races for political office. And the reality is people go into the ballot booth or they mail in their ballots however they vote, and they vote for candidate X and candidate Y and then there are the ballot measures underneath and I don't think anybody in that situation thinks oh I'm no longer participating in election because now I've gotten to the end of the list of candidates now I'm looking at ballot measures I'm doing something else but it's not an election. 
I just don't think that's the experience of most voters as they are voting. If they are continuing to participate in the election. 
But in any event Congress has created this ambiguity what did they mean when they changed the words in the law and that creates an opportunity for us if we choose to take it. 
nd what we are trying to afford our colleagues is the opportunity to undertake that inquiry, to seek public comment.
You know we probably -- I would hope we would get more comments from Members of Congress. And you know maybe some would say yes we meant that and other people would say no we didn't. We would get comments from lawyers, I'm sure, on both sides of the question. 
But it's not -- we're not pulling this out of thin air. They changed the words of the law. And while there is a line of precedence about ballot measures, this Mind Geek case was the first time that the Commission had ever cause to consider post BCRA whether the foreign national ban applied to ballot measures so it was in some sense a case of first impression for us the Bloomen case the language there can be read I think both ways and I pointed that out in my statement also in the Mind Geek case. 
You don't have to make an agreement today that as to what the result of the rulemaking would be. 
But as is true in a number of instances where there are important issues that affect our democracy in front of us, I don't think we should be afraid to engage in the process. And to ask the general counsel to draft a notice. People will comment one way or another. 
We could have hearings we'll have an opportunity to act finding and to draw a conclusion at the end of the day. If you're not going to just shut it down right now. And say, no, we're not willing to listen to anybody on this. Made up our minds. Don't need to listen to anybody. 
Don't need to do this. You know, Congress changed the words of the law. And I think that it's a legitimate inquiry to try and engage with the public on what that -- and with Congress, too, on what that might mean. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Commissioner hunter. 
>> These same tired phrases, they are just so old and so trite and so unsupported by anything that I keep hearing from the other side of the dias here including what the Chair started with we discussed this at the Commission level she said some people don't believe this is a serious problem it's pretty easy to infer that she's talking about her fellow Commissioners as I associate myself with everything the Vice Chair -- with most of what the Vice Chair said, there's one little . . . we have never said this isn't a serious problem as he points out we don't think this is a part of our jurisdiction for a variety of reasons we have spelled out in our previous statement I don't think you can read the Bloomen decision and say there's any ambiguity there. The Vice Chair also read that I'll read it again the court said the act oreign nationals to make contributions and expenditures related to ballot initiatives. With respect to the letter from Mr. Brady member of Congress there's also been a bill introduced in April by Congressman Diothsch I'm not sure I'm saying his name right of Florida he introduced it April 28th of 2015 I believe he's on the House administration and he specifically wants to amend in FECA by striking the word aelection and inserting the following election including a state or local ballot initiative or refer ren dumb so the Congressman clearly believes that a change needs to be made in Congress in order to accomplish what you seek to do so today another refrain that's tired and old and not supported by anything is just ask the questions, just let the public respond as you may have realized by now we're not in favor of putting out an NPRM that we don't think we have jurisdiction to ask. It's beyond our jurisdiction. It is inappropriate. We don't have the authority to do so and it's a waste of public's time to opine on something that we don't think we have the jurisdiction to cover it has nothing to do with whether or not we think foreigners should be able to participate in ballot initiatives that has nothing to do this as Mr. Bob Blauer blogged on this very issue on May 4th, 2015, he recounts the statements in the Mind Geek and explains it all and says quote a regulatory position that ess emphasis on legal authority and conventional legal analysis and more on public -- policy and public opinion may have undeniable passion and good intentions behind it. And both Commissioner Ravel and Winetraub do strive to engage the public with hearings and travel and Commissioner Winetraub with tweets. Ellen Winetraub April 24th should foreigners this is a tweet should foreigners be able to fund ballot measure committees to change U.S. laws my take here and then Commissioner Winetraub links to her statement and then she says what do you think? Back to Mr. Bower the answer to the questions she posed to the public might well be the one she hoped for and might make for the best policy but it would not be the answer supported by the best reading of the law. Then he talks a little bit about another point I would like to make which is the constant refrain -- let me make sure I quote the Chair appropriately here. This Commission has the responsibility to enforce the law. 
Yes, we do. And we don't think this is covered by our law so we give good sound legal reasoning. We show that other people, including Members of Congress don't think that this is covered by the act. And yet we don't care about foreign influence and we don't care about listening to the public and we don't care about enforcing the law it's so tired and old and if people could just n the merits we would be in a much better place. Thank you. 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: I'm sorry that we're tiring you out, Commissioner. 
I just want to say the fact that people seek to clarify regulations or clarify the law isn't inconsistent with the position that the law already covers this but when they recognize that other people are not going to buy that argument, then they may feel they need to take another step. 
I'm not familiar with the Deutsche bill I assume you described it accurately. But I don't find that inconsistent with the Brady position that in fact it's already covered by the law and we could interpret it that way through the regulations. As I said, I think it's already covered in our regulations. But we could make it more explicit. If that would make people feel like they had more of a sound legal basis for what they have to say. 
I mean, I just find it kind of interesting. Like we're going to quote Bob Bower because his opinion is important but anybody else who might want to weigh in that doesn't count we shouldn't listen to them. I like Bob Bower he's a smart guy but the fact that he blogged on something doesn't make me think that, oh, well, I guess I o fold up my tents now and change my opinion because Bob Bower disagrees with me. No disrespect to Bob. Good guy. 
So I'm going to make a motion at the appropriate time that we ought to -- that we -- yes, we ought to engage with the public on this. I think that would be a good idea. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Further in Commissioner Walther.
>> STEVE WALTHER: I'll support the motion but I do think that part of the motion would be to clarify one way or the other. 
I think we -- there's legitimate back and forth on this. Maybe things will come out that will clarify it and make it stronger one way or the other look into the legislative history get more participation on the Hill the fact we got this letter last night is interesting. Certainly supports us -- supports the concept of asking to clarify we write to you today to urge you to clarify the rules and regulations banning foreign contributions. Let's get it clear one way or the other. 
I supported this before. So I'm inclined to do that. My preference would be actually if we were going to get into the foreign involvement in Federal elections would be to take a look at our own regulations at this time. And f we can't strengthen the ones that do apply to Federal elections. And I think that's one that we post sins united would be very helpful. That to me is within that jurisdiction that's where I would like to see the emphasis go, as well. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you Commissioner Walther. I concur with your points. Commissioner Goodman.
>> LEE GOODMAN: Mr. Meyers is that right? I guess one concern I've had about this is if my colleagues over here are correct and I don't think that they are. But if they are correct and you seem to be associating yourself with their legal position, that an election as defined by our act includes a refer ren dumb election then the complaints filed by your organization, there was a complaint filed and I have a -- referendum -- there was a complaint filed I have a press release from AAH dated November 5, twelve. And I have a letter from the fair political practices Commission of California dismissing that complaint. 
Look, what it means is ab initio your complaints before the California fair practices Commission will have to be dismissed and that the California fair practices law that prohibits foreign money in California elections will be preempted. If, if, let me read you the definition our definition of election. 
t's in 52 USC Section 301-01. So the foreign national prohibition prohibits foreign contributions in connection with U.S. election. 
So we look at the definition of election. 
The term election means A, a general special primary or runoff election. 
B, a convention or caucus of a political party which has authority to nominate a candidate. 
C, a primary election held for the selection of delegates to a national nominating convention of a political party. 
And D, a primary election held for the expression of a preference for the nomination of individuals for election to the Office of President. Period. End. That's the end of our definition. 
Now if somehow you can pry into that definition state referendum elections then what would naturally follow is Federal preemption because our laws preempt any state law from regulating what we regulate. And that means that we would be stripping the California fair practices Commission and California State Legislature of its power to enforce its prohibition on foreign money in referendum elections and your complaint of 2012 and your complaint now to the California fair practices Commission complaining about Manwin and another company called Foitle o be dismissed. They would just be preempted by Federal law and we don't have any law in place right now to deal with this. 
And so I would just urge you to think carefully because the California Political Reform Act of 1974 states no foreign principal shall make directly or through any other person make any other expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of or opposition to any state or local ballot measure. 
So be careful what you ask us for and what legal paradigm you support before this Commission. Because if this statute includes referendum elections, then we preempt California fair practices Commission now the California fair practices Commission has had a shot at this and they dismissed the complaint. It was the -- the Chair probably knows about this. 
So for this reason, I don't see how we pry a state refer da election into this -- referendum election into this preemption and therefore preempt the state of California and people of California from regulating this and their referendum elections as they see fit and as the people of California have seen fit. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Commissioner Goodman that's not a question to you --
>> I'm happy to address any of this. 
o you have a reaction to that.
>> ANN RAVEL: Let me just interject for a minute because you raise a really interesting point. And that very issue or questions related to that should be asked in the NPRM. So I think that that's a very appropriate way for us to get input on this matter. And then to consider it. 
>> LEE GOODMAN: But it's a purely legal call on a fairly straightforward definition. I just read the definition. I don't know how you get referendum in here. And if your position here today is -- and if you had four votes to say that we do have a jurisdiction over referendum elections then you have just preempted all state referendum laws. All of them. Certainly with regard to the foreign national prohibition. Did you want to respond to that. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I am. I'm just --
>> I appreciate all of that. As to -- I'll make two points. As to the various cases that have been brought in California -- I'm not fully aware of the content of the first one so I don't know if they were brought under the same issues or same facts as this one. I simply don't know. Two, with respect to preemption law I certainly o the Commission and their expertise as to election law. 
But preemption is not -- there are various categories of preemption under the law it's not necessarily the case that a Federal law absolutely preempts a state or local law and again I'll leave that all to you but I'll just throw that out there. 
And again, AHS position on this is we're a nonprofit organization that's trying to protect the public health. 
This is a valid measure that we thought was helpful to do this not only the residents of Los Angeles County but people throughout the United States because again infectious diseases no matter how they are transmitted they do not respect borders they don't respect statelines this is a situation where a foreign corporation who has no interest in this public health but only in its own profits sought to influence and alter the decision making of the citizens of Los Angeles County that's what we find problematic and we're hoping to find a solution to that I don't want to say I'm taking a side but that's the experience we've had and we would like to see if there's a way to have it addressed because we think it's improper and bad for public health of the United States.
>> LEE GOODMAN: I caught your cold I realize you may not have been with AHS in 2012 this is dated November , 2012 I'm not doing this to ping you I've caught you told to let me read from it so AHF filed in complaint in 2012 with the California fair practices Commission xhooibing xhooibing. And I'll quote from it, we are urging the fair political practices Commission to thoroughly investigate the no on Government waste no on measure B major funding by the USA committee for what certainly appears to us to be accepting illegal contributions from foreign nationals and then trying to cover it up after we initially brought our concerns about it to light side Michael WineStine president of AIDS HealthCare Foundation and one of the five named proponents of the ballot initiative so the matter was -- and then it looks like in late 2013 the California fair practices Commission decided to dismiss the matter. 
That's a bit of history for you. 
>> I was aware of that. I was aware that happened what I'm saying the parties it was brought against, the factual underpinnings of that case may be very different than what's currently being presented that was my point they may be sort of apples and oranges.
>> LEE GOODMAN: I want to allow the fair practices California of California to resolve your dispute under their law.
>> ANN RAVEL: Are there other comments? Is there a ? 
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: There is. And I just want to because the motion contains a regulatory cite I want to preface this by explaining that my proposal is to address this through a rulemaking on 11 YFR 110.20 the -- CFR -- the specific regulation that addresses prohibitions on contributions, expenditures, independent expenditures and disbursements by foreign nationals. It's a narrow proposal. And would not implicate every single state law that affects ballot measures in any way, shape or form. 
And I agree with what Commission Walther said and I'm going to modify what I had planned to say I'm going to change one word to make it even more open-ended, which I firmly believe it should be. 
So I move that we open a rulemaking and direct the Office of General Counsel to draft a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to amend 11 CFR 110.20 to clarify whether the prohibition on disbursements and donations by foreign nationals in connection with state and local elections applies to state and local ballot initiatives and referenda I might argue the fact that the Commission has split on this issue suggests that perhaps it could use some clarification because we can't agree on it. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Are there any comments with respect to that? You know I think the way you've changed -- understand that we want clarification of the issues. But I just want to say clearly that I believe that by rules of statutory construction that it certainly does apply given sort of basic legislative intent and changing of the statute but nonetheless I will support the motion. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye 
( ayes).
>> ANN RAVEL: All those opposed 
(Nos).
>> ANN RAVEL: Madam secretary that motion fails by a vote of 3-3. Commissioner Winetraub, Walther and myself voting yes. And Commissioner Goodman, Hunter and Vice Chair Petersen voting no. Thank you, thank you very much Mr. Meyers for being here today. Thank you. 
The next item is Item No. IV, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on reporting multi-state independent expenditures and electioneering communications in Presidential primary elections. And Joanna Waldstreicher is here on this matter. And Bob Knop, as well. To discuss the matter. Ms. Waldstreicher.
>> JOANNA WALDSTREICHER: Thank you, Chairman Ravel. Agenda documents 15-50-A and 15-50-B are a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a draft interpretive rule respectively addressing the reporting of independent expenditures made in connection with a Presidential lection but that do not reference or target a specific state's primary. If either of the drafts are approved OGC would request the authority to make any technical or conforming changes that are necessary and I'm happy to answer any questions. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you, are there any questions, comments? If not, is there a motion? Commissioner Hunter.
>> CAROLINE HUNTER: We are also -- this is another issue that's gone around and around a few times. And I understand the interest in doing an NPRM for a lot of the things we do and generally I support that in order to get public comment. However in this instance I think it's the more prudent course is to do an interpretation. And draft interpretive rule. And we have made a document public for consideration today. That I think answers the questions that the public has had about this issue. And as you know, we put this issue out for public comment in let's see the timeline is so extensive, let me figure this out. We made this public -- thanks, Troy -- January 2014 we meaning the Commission made three drafts of this issue, blue for an upcoming meeting there were two comments received from this draft both of the comments from Bob LendHart and Derrick Lawler and from holtsman firm they both supported draft B we have the comments we have omething that alleviates the concerns. 
In addition, the Office of General Counsel has said that in this instance, they believe it appropriate to do a draft interpretive rule and one reason for that is if you're trying to do something that doesn't lock the regulated community into one certain way, an interpretive rule might be a good thing because it leaves open the possibility that the public might have a better way of doing so. And so in this instance, I think that as I said is the more prudent course and I would be happy to make a motion when appropriate. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Commissioner Winetraub.
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: Thank you. I appreciate my -- everybody's efforts actually to try and come to resolution on what's a pretty Archaean issue. 
We -- this started with an AO request. An AO request that ironically got a unanimous response from the Commission 4 of the 6 of us who are here today approved that answer in the western representatives -- western representation -- western representation pack. 
So I guess that will teach us to agree on something. So we issued a unanimous opinion and then the same lawyer who requested it submitted a filing on behalf of another client in which he kind of wrote in well that was a dumb answer and I'm not going to listen to it well that was e don't usually get that scrawled on our campaign finance reports so we put out 3 proposals we thought maybe we got it wrong I'm always willing to reconsider. And we put out 3 proposals and got 2 comments and they were thoughtful comments. And they were from experienced practitioners, two former Commissioners, one republican, one Democrat. But it's still only six lawyers who thought it was worth their time to weigh in on this and maybe this is too Archaean a matter and we would never get more than that I don't know. I don't know. But I also don't feel like I've been sort of overwhelmed by the comments and by the weight of opinion out there on this. 
And I also think that there's an issue in the draft interpretive rule that still is kind of hanging out there and that is what exactly is a national wide independent expenditure. It came in the -- in the original AO it was raised in the context of a Facebook ad but are we only talking about ads on the Internet? Are we talking about -- are we talking about broadcast ads that have to be in literally nationwide every single state and territory. Could it be just the continental United States or just 40 states or just the swing states? I'm not -- one of the approaches we posit in the draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is that we call it multi-state rather than nationwide and we seek comment on exactly how multi-state ould have to be. So I can't support the draft interpretive rule. I mean I do have sort of a bias that I like rule makings better than interpretive rules but I also don't think it answers all the questions. I can't support the way it's written today I think the better route would be to do the draft notice and see whether we get more comments. I don't know. Maybe just the same two commenters will just submit the same comments all over again and nobody else will pay any attention. Maybe if we put out an NPRM it will catch more peoples attention and maybe it's closer to the election and more people are focused on it now. Like I said I'm unclear myself whether this proposed interpretive rule would cover anything other than the Internet so I think it's not -- even if I were inclined to agree with the general direction of it, I think it's not there yet. It doesn't answer enough questions to be as useful as it could be to the regulated community and the people who would be trying to follow it. 
And I think on some of these questions we got comments that addressed some of the things we put out but not on this issue of how nationwide or how multi-state would have to be. So as I said. I appreciate the effort. I'm glad we're trying to think about this and resolve it in a way that makes sense to people out there. But I hink the better way to go is with a draft NPRM.
>> CAROLINE HUNTER: I came up with this idea as you were talking. What about just the idea that potentially we approve the draft interpretive rule today or soon. And without getting into the definition of nationwide because as you know we have sort of talked about that amongst ourselves and couldn't really come up with a definition we could agree on so maybe we agree on this for this election cycle because obviously the election cycle has already started if we do an NPRM you have another issue of timing you obviously have to give time to people for notice and comment blah blah blah so if we agreed on this interpretive rule now or soon and then agreed to put out on NPRM that would affect the next election cycle. -- the next election cycle as people are doing things in this cycle they can take mental notes saying I'm sort of working on the fly now let me write some comments to the other stuff that will affect the next cycle and I think that the comment deadline for an NPRM should be well down the road well down the road so it gives people a chance to -- well down the road.
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: How well down the road.
>> CAROLINE HUNTER: Probably a year down the road. We need to give them some time to kind of work it through. hear what you're saying but I think we've already tried to figure out a definition for nationwide and I don't know that we'll be able to come up with one in the short term and then that's probably going to leave us with nothing. But as in no NPH wrchlt and -- NPRM and no interpretive rule as I say I just thought of it maybe this is the middle ground approach to give people something to go by because now the current law in the books is the AO that nobody likes. And so -- just throwing it out there as a potential compromise. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Do you want to speak Commissioner Walther.
>> STEVE WALTHER: I was about to go the other direction toward a compromise and that is what if we adopted a process to consider a rule. But in the meantime agree that regardless we will -- if we're unsuccessful -- I think it's a possibility I see both of those reasonable I don't know we need to think about it some more but it seems to me we definitely have in mind to do something and the question is the procedure and maybe if we agree there's an interpretive rule but it ends so there's an end date on it and then we know it's not a matter of getting them to change it it's over and we have to start again. That's a possibility. Just throwing things out. 
>> MATTHEW PETERSEN: This issue as Commissioner ointed out is a fairly Archaean one but it's starting to have more application and it's not a particularly ideologically charged or controversial issue so I think it's one of those things where it would be nice if we could find some way to move forward. The reason I liked the interpretive rule is we're not that far away from primary season and it would be great to have something in place, some sort of guidance that could be applicable to the current primary season. 
And so I'm wondering if -- it sounds like since there's at least -- there is an open division on this issue whether or not -- ni we necessarily feel comfortable on the fly trying to come up with a resolution now but I think if we were to talk in the meantime before the October open meeting to see whether or not we could put together some sort of a two track proposal where we could provide some guidance for this election cycle and have a process in place that would hopefully maybe elicit more comments and maybe an opportunity to think about these things in a a little bit more of a deliberative way through the NPRM, as well. Maybe we won't be able to reach agreement. But it seems like that might be a fruitful path. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Let me say -- sorry; I didn't mean to cut you off. I mean for my part, I would agree with doing ike that. 
I think an NPRM is important because No. 1, for -- and not that I object to the concept of working on an interpretive rule for the purposes of the reporting now. But the problem with those are that people can report differently. 
And for me, as the disclosure to the public of these -- these issues are really important and it's much more difficult to obtain that kind of disclosure that's necessary in an election when everybody is reporting in a different fashion and of course interpretive rules have no sanction so there's no actual requirement to comply. For that reason I think it would be important for us to go forward on an NPRM but I certainly agree that we should be working together to try to figure out a dual track to get it done. 
>> MATTHEW PETERSEN: I would just add that I agree that we should have some sort of uniformity in this as we found out in post western representation AO is it becomes very confusing as to how do you -- let's say you bought a broadcast ad on CNN, NBC, Fox that broadcast nationwide and if you did it on the eve of the primary season you might actually have to allocate that between many different states and I think that leads to confusion which will result in a lack of uniformity so if we had some o bring a little more uniformity to bear, I think that would actually be helpful for the regulated community but also -- also I think it will bring greater disclosure because if you pretty it ut -- spread it out amongst enough states then it's possible that the thresholds don't get triggered in any one and you could have a widely broadcast ad that because it was broadcast on the eve of many -- of a succession of primaries if you -- if you divided it amongst 10, 15 states, what have you, you may not trigger the threshold for disclosing in any of them. So I know that disclosure -- I think we would all agree that the disclosure would be important and essential in that sort of instance so if we could -- anyway -- I think we're going to keep discussing this and I think that we could -- if we could do something I think that would be very beneficial.
>> ANN RAVEL: So Commissioner Winetraub.
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: My only -- happy to continue to work on this. I think it could be productive hopefully. 
My only request is that we actually do continue to work for it -- work on this and not do what tends to happen around here and wait until the day before the meeting and then say, oh, here is my new idea. 
So let's actually try and engage on this. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank s. Waldstreicher. 
Item No. V, it's -- Commissioner Goodman has asked that discussion of the documents relating to the disclosure of enforcement files be held over. And we just received a memo from the Office of General Counsel yesterday with respect to my request of greater documents that could be produced to the public. 
So I've not had an opportunity to review that document. And so I think that item also should be held over to the next meeting. Commissioner Winetraub.
>> ELLEN WINETRAUB: I absolutely agree and my staff has already had some conversation with Commissioner Goodman's staff and I again hope that we can work together towards something that we might all be able to agree on. It might not be the perfect thing from everybody's perspective but I think there is a lot of grounds for agreement on this topic.
>> LEE GOODMAN: I agree. And for those of us who believe in transparency the agency can improve its transparency policies. One thing that has been clear through the memos and the research that's been done by the Office of General Counsel I think it's been very helpful is to identify gaps in policies and formal policies of the Commission. 
Apparently we have many practices that are well trod ell established. But no formal policy adopting that practice. 
And so I think there's some room here for us to clarify and put in some formal procedures and understandings of the Commission.
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you. All right. So those -- that matter will be held over. 
The next item is Item No. VI and Ms. Orich this is on Mind Geek and administrative matters. Are there any Mind Geek or administrative matters that the Commission needs to discuss? In this in in meeting.
>> There are none. 
>> ANN RAVEL: Thank you all for being here the meeting stands adjourned.