This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on May 19, 2016.  This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.


Good morning, everyone. The open meeting of the federal election commission will come to order for Thursday, may 19. Before we get started, we have a motion for some late -- some late documents which have come in. Vice chairman is joining us. Do you have a motion with respect to those submitted documents? 
>: Yes. I move to suspend the timeliness -- [ Spoken on phone, unclear audio ] For technical amendments to 2015 CFR. Policy guiding the public policy disclosure of certain documents. For 1554 B, I move the commission add to the agenda consideration. [ INDISCERNIBLE ] and that the commission 2.7 D that the business requires and no [ INDISCERNIBLE ] was possible. 
>> We have a motion on the table. Is there any discussion on that motion? If none, all indicate by saying aye? Any opposed? Madame secretary, that motion passes 6-0. First item on the agenda is correction and approval of minutes for April 15 and April 28, 2016. Do we have a motion? 
>: I move to approve the minutes for April 15 and April 28. 
>> Is there any discussion on that motion? If none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Any opposed? Madame secretary that motion passes by a vote of 6-0. Next item on the agenda, item two is draft advisory opinion 2016-04 submitted by grand trunk western railroad company and Illinois central railroad company political action committee. Do we have Mr. Barron on the phone? 
>: You do. 
>: Thank you for joining us. We have a presentation from the opposite city council. Good morning to the both of you. 
>> Thank you, and good morning, commissioners. Before you is agenda document 16-19-A, a draft advisory opinion in response to a request from grand trunk western RRD, Illinois central RRD. The request of a separate fund of two corporations. Canadian railway and its subsidiaries collectively operate under the brand CN. The requester asks whether it may use CN in its abbreviated name. It would provide adequate notice. We did not receive any comments on the request or draft. I would be happy to address any questions you may have. 
>: Thank you for the presentation. Do we have any questions for council or suggestion on the draft? Hearing none, do we have a motion? I will state my position. This is a pretty straightforward draft. The proposal that is set forth by the requester as to how he would like to name their packet is perfectly consistent with the past naming. I think it was necessary in order to reach the conclusions that are found in this draft, and I'll be happy to support it at the appropriate time. Commissioner Goodwin? 
>: Was this requester in the -- did we issue an advisory opinion to this requester in the last year or two? 
>: Yes. 
>: What was the subject of that advisory opinion? 
>: I can answer that question if anyone needs me to. 
>: Sure. 
>: It was a request that dealt with the situation where under the rules where you can go ahead and the corporate sponsor can make contributions to charities as a match for the solicitations, as a match for donations to the PAC. And the question was whether a committee and charity could be the recipient of the charitable contribution. 
>: Do you remember, was that a 6-0? The commission issued an advisory opinion? 
>: It did issue an advisory opinion, but I don't know what the vote was. 
>: Okay. Thank you very much. 
>> I saw you reaching for the microphone. 
>> I was pulling up the votes, sir. It was 6-0 in AO-201502. 
>> Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? 
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to be able to support this request. I don't fault council for their analysis, which I think is consistent with earlier rates that the commission issued but we haven't looked at the citizens united. The predicate of this is a little concerning to me. We have a subsidiary that is so thoroughly integrated with the foreign parent that they want to name their U.S. PAC Canadian national PAC. I think this is an area that requires further policy consideration and the whole question of foreign parents of U.S. subsidiaries is obviously one that I have been concerned about recently, so I'm not going to be able to support the draft today. 
>> Okay. Commissioner Goodwin. 
>> Let me ask the general council, who may participate in this political action committee? Under current rules of foreign corporations and domestic subsidiaries, what are the rules regarding who may participate financially by giving contributions to this PAC and who can participate in making decisions for this political action committee? 
>> Um, currently, the restricted class of the political action committee can make contributions to it. They have to be U.S. citizens or green card holders. And there are several advisory opinions where the commission has addressed SSS that are connected organization is a domestic subsidiary of a foreign parent and the AOs have given limitations. We didn't fully flesh that out. 
>> I just want to refresh my recollection that we do have a body of law regarding political action committees which are associations of American citizens who participate in the political process and they're U.S. domestic subsidiary -- their employer, a U.S. company that may be owned by a foreign company can sponsor that political action committee if I recall, using U.S. domestic revenues. And Americans have to make the decisions for the political action committee. 
>> Yes. 
>> And that's been the law for decades, right? 
>> Yes. It's been the -- it is, as I said, in other AOs going back, I don't remember how far back. 
>> Okay. So at the end of the day, the association here is constituted -- the PAC, The People who give money to it, who make the decisions for it are American citizens. So this is an association of American citizens, is it not? 
>> Well, again, you know, there are regulations that limit who can give money to the SSF based on their citizenship. As far as who's making decisions for the PAC, I can't answer that because we didn't ask. In other advisory opinions where that's been an issue, they've asked more questions. 
>> Assuming they comply with the law, only American citizens can make decisions for this political action committee. Am I right about that? That has been the law for decades? Only American citizens can make the political decisions for the political action committee. 
>> Yes. That's generally the case. 
>> Okay. So we're dealing with a political action committee constituted of American citizens who want to participate in our Democratic affairs. This association of American citizens obtained an advisory opinion from this commission 6-0 about a year ago. I would just ask commissioner Winetrop, what circumstances have changed? 
>> This issue was not at all brought up for the advisory opinion. And honestly, it wasn't part of the analysis. There was no back and forth on the foreign ownership. It was just a question on whether to give money to a foreign charity. So it just raised an entirely different question. If a foreign company hired a bunch of American citizens and they wanted to form a PAC as part of a foreign company, we would say no. That's pretty plain law also. So this question goes to the issue of how much control the foreign parent has over the domestic subsidiary and this is an issue that I have raised before that I am concerned about, the connection between foreign parents and U.S. subsidiaries and their participation in U.S. elections. Obviously, these American citizens are free to make any contributions they want in American elections. They are free to form a PAC if they want to, separate from their corporation. The only question is whether they can do that as part of a corporation that is wholly owned by a foreign parent and so controlled by the foreign parent that they want to put that in the PAC that it's a Canadian company. I think this is a subject that requires more discussion of the commission and more policy development. I understand you don't agree with me, but I am not going to be able to support it. 
>> If I may, but what you're suggesting is a different treatment of these American citizens than the treatment given to all employ -- American employees over decades. So you're suggesting a change in the law here in the treatment of these American citizens who have come to us and requested -- now if you need more information, perhaps, to give the advisory opinion, perhaps the requester -- we do this quite often. Questions are taken back after colloquies here and maybe they would supply you more information. This PAC has been in existence since the 1970s or 1980s. They have complied with exitent law. It is an association of American citizens who are participating under the umbrella of a political action committee that is sponsored by their employer. I hear you saying I'm not going to give the advisory opinion that it is entitled to under law by this commission because I have other concerns about foreign companies that isn't implicated in here just how they named their American association. And I drive by -- I remember this issue came up two years ago, and in an advisory opinion requested by yamaha USA, where the American subsidiary of a foreign corporation wanted to know if it could include good, red-blooded American citizens who run the yamaha dealer. I drive by and they have a sign up, locally owned and operated since 1959 by good, red-blooded American citizens. And they wanted to know if billy bob yamaha could be part of their restricted class. And so I don't want to discriminate against the good American citizens who work for this company and want to form a political action committee under the umbrella of their American company employer just because the company they work for happens to be owned by a foreign company. And so I think these American citizens are entitled to an advisory opinion on the merits of their request. 
>> Commissioner Weintraub. 
>> You are determined to put this in the most contentious fashion possible. These good American, red-blooded citizens. The larger issue isn't implicated. You think the larger issue of whether domestic subsidiaries that are fully owned by foreign parents -- you think that their participation in the American political system is not implicated by this request and I disagree with you. And you can -- we can continue to go back and forth about that, but I'm going to continue to disagree with you. So sorry. I think this issue raises a broader issue that requires more study here at the commission. 
>> I'll chair with, I believe that broader issue has been decided and has been settled through decades of advisory opinions on how we insulated the American political activity of these American employees from the activities of a foreign company that might own their American subsidiary. And if you want to propose changes to that law, which I understand you may want to do, then you should do that. You should propose changes to that law. But I wouldn't in the meantime deny these American citizens the right to advisory opinion under existing law that they are entitled to. 
>> Commissioner Weintraub. 
>> And I believe that citizens united changed the entire legal framework for how we look at corporations in the American political system and caused me to reconsider a lot of what seemed okay 20 years ago may raise new issues today. Again, I understand, you don't agree with that. You don't think those larger issues are implicated, but I do. 
>> Mr. Chairman, just one more. Just recently you voted along with five other commissioners to punish an American candidate who owned a foreign corporation for using assets of that foreign corporation in connection with his campaign in America. Wholly owned company in another country, hasn't been made public yet, but probably the confidentiality doesn't apply any more. And you didn't raise any of the issues there even though the foreign company was wholly owned by an American citizen. You had no qualms about what the law was in that case. All of the sudden because there is a foreign owner of an American subsidiary, you think that the law has changed by citizens united. Where was that argument when we voted to punish an American citizen who ran for congress and used assets from a foreign company? 
>> Commissioner Hunter? Weintraub? 
>> I'm not going to debate merits of a matter that has not been made public. 
>> I was wondering along these same lines. What if -- you had said earlier that The People can contribute on their own. I think you said they can get together and form their own organization and contribute that way. Of course they can do that, and I think I agree with my colleagues on this side of the table that they should also be able to under clear precedential decisions here to also contribute through their American-owned PAC and company. But what if one of these employees in the American subsidiary gets its paycheck directly from the Canadian company even though the person is an American citizen, but his paycheck -- let's assume -- I don't know if that's the facts at all. Let's assume his paycheck comes from a Canadian company. He puts it in his bank account. Can he write a contribution to Hillary Clinton? It's Canadian money. 
>> Commissioner Weintraub? 
>> I would want to give it more thought. I'm not going to debate hypotheticals. You said it's an American-owned company. It's not, though, it's foreign owned company. 
>> It's a foreign parent but they have a U.S. subsidiary. 
>> It is owned by the foreign parent. That's what makes it the foreign parent. 
>> So you want to revisit the whole -- that new view of the law is going to impact many, many corporations in this country, and I don't think that's warranted in anyway by citizens united. I'm trying to recall the "New York Times" oped you wrote -- 
>> End of march. 
>> It seemed like my hypo was implicated by your piece, if somebody's getting all of their money from a foreign source then it could be a problem. That's my recollection. If a group of people decided to form their own organization and contribute, you know, run an independent expenditure supporting Hillary Clinton, I wonder if that would be problematic. It might be if they're all rich white guys. Because you had said on one of your most recent speeches that the problem is all the super-PACs are run by white -- I think you said white, rich guys? 
>> I'm pretty sure I did not say that the problem is that they are run by rich, white guys. 
>> What did you say? 
>> I don't know. I don't know what you're referring to. You're taking a vague recollection of something I supposedly said at some point. It is certainly true that the donor class is disproportionately white and male. 
>> There are new reports out that call that hypothesis into question or suggests there are more women and minorities participating. 
>> They are, but I think it is still largely white men. 
>> I'm not sure how that is actually actually relevant. 
>> You brought it up. You tell me. 
>> I brought it up because you brought it up. I brought it up because the commissioner on this agency has been out there in the public using that as an issue. So I bring it up to ask you what your underlying reason for bringing it up is. I don't think the constitution, you know, decides who has the right to speak based on, you know, what their ethnic background or racial background is or bank account is, thankfully. So I'm just concerned because you suggest, first of all this can't happen under this, but then we're not sure if the individual who gets paid by a foreign corporation can actually contribute to Hillary Clinton. And if a group of people get together and form a super-PAC and spend money independently, that can be a problem, too, because some people want to overturn citizens united, I don't know, may they can't do that. 
>> Corporations can't make contributions to candidates. 
>> I said independent expenditure. 
>> Would you consider adding a sentence to this draft that reflects based on what was said that this committee assumes that this company and these American citizens will comply or are in compliance with all other legal rules for the operation of American PACs sponsored by American subsidiaries of foreign corporations? In other words we would put a sentence in that assumes they're in compliance with the existing rules of law. 
>> I understand you don't like the fact that I'm not going to vote yes, but you're not -- you're just prolonging the argument here. 
>> I was trying to address your concern. There is a body of law that has been developed over decades and assuming that they are in compliance with all of those, can we give these American citizens the advisory opinion that they're entitled to? 
>> You say they're entitled to it. You know? If I agreed with you that they were entitled to this advisory opinion, then I would vote for it. 
>> I just want to be clear of my understanding of your position. You want to change the law. There is a body of existing law that regulates this U.S. domestic subsidiary and the American citizens who work for it. And I am assuming that these American citizens who are associating under the umbrella of this political action committee and have been for decades have been in compliance with those existing rules. And what I understand you saying is you will not grant them an advisory opinion here because effectively you want to change the existing rules? You want the commission to consider changing the existing rules? That is a fair position for any commissioner here. 
>> Thank you. 
>> But, these citizens are playing by the rules that have been in existence for decades, and so my position is these American citizens are entitled to an advisory opinion that they've requested unless and until the commission does change its rules. And so I just want to be clear about why you're voting no. Is it because you want to change the rules? 
>> I believe that citizens united caused a change in how we have to view corporate spending and corporate subsidies of political spending in this country, and it is long overdue, and I am not prepared today to just continue along the line of precedence that was adopted pre citizens united. And let me just say, you know, there was a lot of stuff said before that did not strike me as particularly relevant as to this opinion. Once you earn your paycheck, it's your money. I don't think we need to -- um -- cause concern out there about American citizens who earn money and might have a foreign employer. Once you have earned that money it's yours. 
>> Thank you for that clarification. Along those same lines, though, if somebody wants to give the same thing, their money that they earned maybe from a Canadian parent organization, it's their money they're contributing to the PAC. It's the same thing. 
>> But the question is, is it an American PAC? Is the American subsidiary wholly owned by the foreign corporation. Remember, if we didn't have a subsidiary in between, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If a Canadian national came in here and said we want to set up a PAC from the parent corporation in the United States we would say of course you can't do that. You're a foreign corporation. Now you feel comfortable that because they've set up a wholly owned domestic subsidiary that that's enough of a separation to warrant allowing the participation. And remember, there is still a subsidy to the corporation through the PAC, and I think we need to take a -- you know, we've been ducking this question ever since citizens united. And it's because the commission has ducked this question ever since citizens united, I don't think that binds us to say well now we're just stuck with all of these old precedents because nobody's been willing to reconsider them. We have to just keep adopting them over and over and over again. 
>> Commissioner Ravel? 
>> I don't know that anybody thinks that it affects something this narrow, wanting to contribute to candidates through law that has been on the books for decades. I don't know if Mr. Barron is going to get four votes for this or not, but he's certainly not going to get six. You know, obviously, he can rely on previous opinions, because there are a lot of old AOs on the books that haven't been overturned. Of course you would need four votes to overturn those advisory opinions. So he would be well within his rights to rely on those old and good advisory opinions. 
>> Are there any further comments? 
>> I have a comment. 
>> Yes, Mr. Barron? 
>> This is Steve. 
>> Sorry about that. 
>> Can you hear me all right? 
>> Over the phone line it was indistinguishable. 
>> Can you hear me okay? 
>> I'm going to join commissioner Weintraub on this. I think when citizens united came down, I felt there was a rather strong policy shift in campaign finance. It doesn't mean that everything that existed before as policy should necessarily just automatically stay the same. I don't think that's the case. Things aren't the same. When you see the flow of money coming in from corporations, there's a lot of reasons why we ought to look at the policies involved and I think most people agree with that. We've tried to do that a number of times and there was a proposal. When you disclose that, you have a majority vote but not enough to make it law. January 20, 2011, we have a conference coming up in the next month or two on these new issues, so I think, for me, I do think that the opinion that was provided by the general council was well written. It did track old law, but I don't consider it necessarily the same, and I would say that I took the position of taking a look at my view of the system and my opinion, and because of citizens united and another AO, and in this case, I think I want to take another look at it myself. I'm concerned about, you know, the seepage of money coming through for new forms of entities and parents of entities and affiliates of entities without taking another good look at what the law should be. So we have this conference coming up. We have the old draft. There's been a lot of new thinking since citizens united came down. I think we ought to take a look at what we come up with and see how it goes. 
>> Any further comments or discussion? Mr. Barron, are there any comments you would like to make with respect to the discussion that's here to for taken place? 
>> Well, I'm just coming back to my letter of February 22. I just want to reemphasize that the requesters here are GTW-IC PAC. And that's how it's currently registered, it was noted a long time separate segregated fund. The U.S. corporate sponsors of the fund, as the registration indicates is the grand trunk and Illinois central, wholly owned but U.S. subsidiaries. Both grand trunk and Illinois central have their own separate existence, own employees, and submit all filings in their own corporate name. So, you know, this advisory opinion is really meant to encourage -- what we're seeking is meant to encourage transparency so that people know just who we really are. And as I said, CN is a brand name. Yes it applies to the Canadian parent, but also equally it applies to the U.S. subsidiaries as well. And our business cards, our locomotives all say CN on it. The headquarters in Chicago all say CN united. We were trying to operate within an existing parameter of precedent. As far as I can tell, even with citizens united, nothing changed with regard to the regulatory scheme with corporations and political contributions. Those laws that have remained in effect for a number of decades. We're hopeful that the commission looks favorably on our letter. 
>> Mr. Barron, Lee Goodman, can you confirm that this has been in existence for decades? 
>> It was originally formed in 1977. I want to say at some point in the early 2000s, an additional sponsor came on. But the original political action committee, it goes back to before my time as an attorney was started in the late 70s. It was originally named the grant trunk western railroad PAC. Grand trunk has always been in the name of the PAC. As I said at some point there was an added affiliated sponsor that was Illinois central railroad company. The PAC, I want to say, goes back to the 70s. 
>> And do American citizens make the decisions? 
>> Yes, they do. 
>> And only American citizens allowed to contribute to this political action committee? 
>> That is absolutely correct. American citizens and also -- that's governed by law. It's got to be American citizens and to the extent they're green card holding resident of the United States as well. 
>> Thank you. 
>> Any further comments? Commissioner Hunter? 
>> I'm just wondering as a practical matter, whether the suggestions that Mr. Barron has on page two of his question, number three is considering one of the acronyms of consideration a pack for CN entities, I wonder if the PAC kept the same name that they already have which is GTW-IC PAC and then just tacked on the a PAC for CN entities as their own kind of explanation? It seems to me that that doesn't change their -- the official name of their PAC. They're just adding a little bit of an explanation to it. That sort of thing, I wouldn't think, would be relevant in the kind of thing that you would need to ask the commission. I don't know if Brad or anybody would have a thought on that. 
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think they're asking about changing the official name of the PAC, just the name that they operate. 
>> That is correct. There is no request to change the official name of the PAC. 
>> Okay. 
>> It's just one of the, looking at the advisory on the potential three acronyms or abbreviations. 
>> Do we have anything further? Do we have a motion? 
>> Mr. Chairman, I move to approve a agenda document 16-9-A, which is draft A and the one that was made public a week or two ago. 
>> I'm sorry. 16-19-A. Or is it 16-9-A? 
>> 16-19-A. 
>> Okay. That's perhaps what the commissioner said, I just didn't hear it that way. 
>> Okay. 
>> So we have a motion on the table. Is there any discussion on that motion? If none, then all in favor indicate by saying aye. 
>> Aye. 
>> Those opposed? 
>> No. 
>> That motion fails with a vote of 3-3 with ravel, Weintraub and vice chairman are opposed. Mr. Barron, thank you for being part of this discussion. Sorry that we couldn't reach an agreement on it, but thank you for answering the questions and participating in this discussion. 
>> Very good. I will go ahead and if no further matters, I will go ahead and drop the line, then. 
>> Thank you. 
>> Moving on to the draft final rule and explanation and justification for technical amendments to 2015 CFR. Mr. Lynch, I don't know if -- there has been a bit of movement. I don't know if there is presentation that you need to give, feel free to do so now. 
>> We didn't have any updates. I know there was a new agenda document. 
>> Okay. 
>> I just have a question. 
>> Okay. 
>> Does office of the general council have any objection to the substance in the proposed amendments? And does the office of the general council believe that they would accomplish the intended objective? 
>> We do. We don't have any objections. 
>> Thank you. 
>> Okay. Do we have any discussion? Do we have a motion? 
>> Mr. Chair? 
>> Mr. Goodman. I went blue with the amendment so it would be on the public record. Madame secretary, what document number should I move? 
>> I have the language in front of -- commissioner Goodman should be the one to make a motion. 
>> I'm just going to move the document. 
>> Well, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong. I think you want to move 16-12 A as amended by the changes in your memo? 
>> Yeah, and I'm just trying to -- 
>> All right. We have a motion on the table. All indicate by saying aye? Any opposed? I think I heard six ayes. Madame secretary that vote motion passes by a unanimous vote of 6-0. Thank you. The next item on the agenda which is proposed statement of policy regarding the #3UB lick disclosure of closed enforcement files is going to be held over. There is a new agenda document that was submitted by commissioner Weintraub and I think she wanted to make a couple comments. 
>> First of all I want to thank my colleagues, commissioners uh-uh goodman and Ravel for all the work they have put into their proposals to expand the number of documents, both the number and kind of documents that we put on the public record. I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. What I have tried to do in order to help move the ball forward is to try and take -- to synthesize commissioner Goodman and Ravel's suggestions with our old policy and tried to put it together into one document. So it would be easier for -- I hope that I have identified areas of agreement. I think it's possible that we will need to tweak the language here and there. I apologize for not getting it around to folks until yesterday. But the goal was to come up with a single policy and to supercede the old interim policy with a permanent policy. I thought we were going to do rule making on this, I'm still open to doing a rule making on this. Our lawyers tell us that we don't have to do rule making, that we can do this as a policy but I think it's time that we adopt a permanent policy and stop calling it an interim policy. It's been interim for over a decade. I think it would be useful to the public and to anyone who wants to try to follow what we do around here to have it all in one place. So this was an attempt to, as I said, synthesize what had already been put on the table with what we already had on the books and try and move the ball forward in a constructive direction. I look forward to my colleagues' comments -- it's not intended to be a final document. I assume that there will be little tweaks. But I look forward to my colleagues' comments. 
>> Commissioner Ravel? 
>> I just like to say that I really welcome the suggestion. I think it's a really good idea. All along I have said in my concern about these documents that we should have some kind of a broader holistic approach rather than incrementally depending on each person's view about what is important. Instead it should be a meaningful policy that will help the agency go forward in terms of more robust disclosure. So I think this is a great idea, and I think it's really important that we have a permanent kind of a policy rather than having an interim policy. So I support this. I think it's really a good idea to do this. 
>> I think we're on a constructive path. I see a few areas of discrepancy, but they're very minor. I want to thank commissioner Ravel and commissioner Weintraub for working with me on this and I think we're moving in a constructive course here. 
>> We will plan on taking this up in the very near future as we have a chance to look at this and figure out where we can reach agreement with respect to our disclosure policy. Next item on the agenda is 2014-01, this was put on at the request of commissioner Weintraub. I imagine you would like to make a comment or two on this? 
>> I would indeed, thank you Mr. Chairman. This goes to the new accounts that were set up under what was's known as the cromnibus. [ Phonetic ] There's a lot of money being raised for the new accounts. And we had our lawyers take a very thorough look at this and they came up with good constructive suggestions, a detailed outline for how to move forward with rule making. They did that with October of last year and we discussed it last December. And I think there was supposed to be some plan of maybe the regulars committee was going to try to move this forward or something was supposed to happen. But, the sad fact is that nothing is happening. Absolutely nothing has happened since we last talked about this in December. And I think something really needs to happen. We need to move forward. We need to direct council. There is a need for DPREX us. We need to direct them if people have different ideas. But right now we're not doing anything. There's an article in the Washington post this morning in which one prominent attorney says I think both will find creative ways to use the quasi soft accounts to support their candidates. There has been virtually no enforcement of the campaign finance laws so it would be malpractice not to make political uses of these accounts. I think we are long overdue for providing guidance to all of The People trying to operate under this law. I say to my colleagues, what the hell are we waiting for? I think we should direct our lawyers to start drafting an MPRM so we can provide guidance to the party committees and to the donors and to everybody else out there about how they're supposed to move forward using these new accounts which are apparently a huge fund raising vehicle. And you know, it's going on out there and we're sitting on our hands on the sidelines and I think we should move. 
>> Any questions or further discussion? Commissioner Goodman? 
>> You can go first. 
>> I have a practical question. I want to pose a practical question. I believe the rule making in this area could be quite constructive. I think it's obvious that we wouldn't change the rules on anybody in the middle of this election cycle. We probably would get the MPRM out so we would probably be looking at something early next year, I think. So that's a practical concern, number one. The second is while the Democratic national committee and the Republican national committee are under water right now organizing national conventions in a presidential year, I think we should think about the timing of when we put this out for comment, because this is going to impact them. They're going to want to comment. And they are -- their resources are stretched right now. And so I think we ought to consider that as we work through the process of when are we -- when are we going -- since we're not going to change the rules between now and November, we ought to think about when we're going to pose this rule-making burden on the parties to bring us comments. 
>> Commissioner Ravel? 
>> I'm not disagreeing that we might want to have considerations about timing, but my concerns about just our activities in general, and we've talked about this, is a very important part of our role is to provide guidance to others. And yes, it's not going to probably impact this particular election, given the timing for rule making, but I think it's very important for this commission to move forward on rule making for matters of great significance. And this is one that we addressed and I'm trying to go back. I haven't looked at the date that this was first -- 
>> The memo was provided in October. 
>> Yeah, from October 2015. And it -- I think we're remiss in not performing the function that's really important so that people can know how to comply with our laws. So I would like to at least have a us ask the office of general council to begin to work on this matter and we can make determinations about when we decide to go forward on it. I don't think that that's something that we need to talk about today necessarily. But I understand your concern. No, and I understand that, absolutely. 
>> And I'll just add as I mentioned, I think additional clarification could be helpful to everyone. I agree with commissioner Goodman, there are the practical realities of when we can -- when would be the best time to launch this rule making in order to get the most useful comments on the party committees that they can provide in light of the burdens that they have right now. I think we'll obviously need to take those into account but hopefully we can figure out a way that we can figure out what's going to be the best schedule, too, and the best way to move forward with respect to this. And then just one comment. We took this up late last year. I had some concern about the language in some of the outlines. I think we would need to, potentially, I think there would need to be some tweaks in terms of the guidance that would be provided in this outline that we would want to give to OGC in what we would want to see. One was the implications that this would have on an earlier outline with respect to the funding of the conventions. And I think there was some concerns as to that. And there were others as well. But I think that in terms of a rule making, I think it's a good idea. I think it's the realities that we need to operate within, obviously we'll take those into account. And we'll need to look at and figure out a way where we can land on a document that we're all comfortable for supporting that we can then give to OGC to give them the head start in terms of the draft. 
>> Commissioner Weintraub. 
>> So do we have consensus that we want to direct ODC to start drafting? I don't want past delay to become the excuse for further delay and we're never going to finish a project if we don't start it. Can we get them started with the understanding that commissioners will be giving feedback? 
>> I'm not comfortable saying start drafting yet. Because I -- I mean, this was it's been about six months since I last read this, so I can't recall all of the specifics of this document. And so I think the most productive a path for us as a commission is to give them a guidance document that's going to have the most -- the most, you know, likely ability to actually get four more votes. I would want to go through and make sure that whatever -- whatever directions this provides will have the most likelihood of success. I couldn't give a green light right now but I don't disagree that we don't want delay to become the mechanism by which we're operating. 
>> Could we -- 
>> With all due respect -- 
>> Mr. Chairman? 
>> It's been sitting on everybody's desks since last October and nobody has provided any guidance to ODC other than what's in this document that they want to see in here. So if not today, then when? 
>> Mr. Chairman? 
>> Mr. Vice chairman? 
>> I just want to go on the record, I think there's nothing lost by moving forward to have ODC start to look at this and to start putting a framework on it. It might even, for use of better discussion than looking at an outline and suggesting what it might be and trying to decide in advance what we think they're going to draw. I would like to see them take a run at a draft. We can call it a rough draft, and then see, you know, those generate other ideas and better ideas, and then maybe we'll see ourselves looking at another draft. And by that time the election might be behind us and we can, you know, focus with more speed and a better product. When the election is over, there's going to be a sense of wow, the election's over and maybe we can get started on this next year. But I don't think anything is lost by moving it by just getting a draft going. And asking ODC to give us their best crack at it. They know pretty well what the issues are. They could give us a draft A and B if they want to even to say we know there's considerations and two different points of views. Here's what you might want to look at for discussion. What I would hope is to get consensus to authorize them to get started now. 
>> Commissioner goodman? 
>> Look? As I said, I think it could be a constructive proposal, but I do recall from months ago -- and by the way, I don't recall the regulations committee late last year meeting to even discuss this and develop it further. So you've brought it back on our radar screen. I do recall from the last time this came up in the fall of 2015 that I did have some deep substantive reservations about the legal paradigm presented. I think I discussed some of those at a public meeting. One was the -- and that I couldn't support this outline if it was going to propose something to the advisory opinions because the rational was not affected by the creation of the special accounts in the -- in the reconciliation act. There are other substantive issues that I recall. I do think the office of the general council would benefit from further discussions with commissioners before it takes off to draft something based on this outline. Whether we do that through the regulations, I know the chair and vice chair constitute the regulations committee, whether we have a broader process in enacting, I'm willing to identify all of my substantive issues coming together, but I'm not comfortable sending them off to draft something now, based on this outline that I know I have disagreements. 
>> Commissioner Weintraub? 
>> Let me suggest that it's always been my position on rule makings, this would be to be in the process. We're not talking about a final rule. We're talking a notice and a proposed rule making and the documents should always include alternatives to reflect any idea that any commissioner wants to put forward on the topic. I think it would help commissioners identify exactly what alternative they want if they saw a beginning document, an early draft from OGC. And, as I said, nothing has happened yet. Other than political party committees going out in the vacuum that we have created and doing, I'm sure, the best they can. I know that both of the major political party committees are well advised. They've got good lawyers. I'm sure they're doing the best they can. I'm not sure that we're abnegating our own duties, and we have to get started. My own few is that OGC could start with the understanding they would be getting ongoing feedback from commissioners about other alternatives they wanted to see proposed. And I'm not predicting -- I honestly haven't decided yet where I would land on any particular issue in here. I thought it was a good starting point, the October memo. If you want more time at the front end to provide them with some -- I don't see any downside to them starting drafting now. But if you want more time at the front end to give them some more feedback at the front end, I'm okay with that, but that's what we said we were going to do in December and nothing has happened since. I'm just putting everybody on notice that I'm going to keep bringing this up. I recognize the timing issues and am open to discussing the timing issues, but I don't think we should let past delay become the excuse for further delay or we will find ourselves just starting the project next year and then oh my gosh it's 2018 already and we're in an election year and we can't do it now because we're in the middle of an election year or it will never get done. We have to just start. 
>> Commissioner Goodman? 
>> What is the evidence that the parties claim they don't have sufficient guidance today? If we think they're doing something really untort, that would be a compelling reason to move quickly and the other is the parties claiming they don't have the guidance they need. That's another compelling reason to move very fast. I'm not suggesting that we abnegate our responsibility to provide guidance, but what is the compelling problem right now? 
>> Well, it appears that our office of general council based on the discussion here at the table today has one view of what the law might mean and not all commissioners share that view, so there appears to be some not complete agreement even of The People sitting at this table today as to what this law means. So if we're not sure what it means, how do we expect The People out there have a perfect understanding of it? 
>> On the issue we just discussed on whether to abnegate the convention committees established by advisory opinions, there is an AO that both national parties are relying on it, that this commission recognizes those committees. They file regular reports with the commission. They get RFAIs from the commission, and they are operating and reporting pursuant to the advisory opinion. Now someone may want to change that law. So I don't say that's a disagreement in the law. I think that what office of general council was recommending that we change the law and change what is national practice by both parties. Listen, I'm willing to undertake this process. I guess I was just asking a practical concern about the timing. So I was adding a question that was where is the problem out there? Do we have reason to believe that the Democratic national committee and Republican national committee are abusing the accounts in some way? I'm just not aware of a problem that compels us to act immediately but I'm willing to act. 
>> I'm not sure that's a relevant question. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't think it's a relevant question because we know there are disagreements within some of these matters. Maybe not the one that you're talking about. Maybe that's very clear, but there are others where the law is not clear about the usage of some of the accounts, and there's potentially disagreements, but we've already acknowledged it's not going to impact this particular question. The question is are we going to abnegate our responsibility? And I think we need to move forward and what I would suggest -- and I appreciate that you've got things that you would like to add and mentioned within the next two months. Maybe we could set a date certain for everyone to provide their suggestions to council. And that we could then come back and have a discussion about it, set a date for us to discuss it at a meeting right now so that everybody is on notice that we could do that. I just, what I worry about is the same thing that commissioner Weintraub has mentioned, and that is just by virtue -- this is no negative to any one side or anybody. But, time gets away from us. And it goes off the radar and we don't then deal with matters that we really should be dealing with. And it would be good if we had some certainty about at least when we're going to come back and discuss it. And if we need more time, then we need more time. 
>> Commissioner Hunter? 
>> We may decide to go forward with this rule making. We might have six votes to do so. But I take exception to the cat GORization that we may be abnegating our responsibility. There is no responsibility to write a rule. The law was passed by congress. In this time when it's hard to get these things through, congress passed a law and party committees are doing their thing. As commissioner Goodman suggests, I know of no evidence that they have questions. We've never had an advisory opinion on this at all. The person that you quoted from the Washington times -- 
>> Post. 
>> I mean -- you probably don't read the Washington times. The Washington post. He is a great guy, but as far as I know he doesn't represent the political parties. Maybe he does now, and I'm not aware of it. I don't think he does. Again, I'm not aware of the parties running around scratching their head saying gee, I wish the FEC would do a reg on this. The law doesn't call for us to do a regulation on this. Sometimes when congress passes a law it requires the FEC to implement a regulation. There is nothing as far as I know on this to pass a regulation. The statute is we should do regulations when necessary. I don't see that it's necessary here. Going back to last year, I was on the regulations committee, I don't recall -- I don't think we ever had a discussion about it. I received a memo and I'm not saying that it was poorly written or anything like that. But I don't recall anybody getting together and saying write this memo. I never thought it was necessary to begin with. 
>> Just one comment about that. You know, what I meant by abnegating our responsibility was that we do have an obligation to provide rule makings that will assist the community that relies on our guidance to be able to comply with the law. And I recall the last rule making we did, and we did it together on citizens united, there was nothing in The Court decision that said we had to do rules. There was no one coming before us saying oh my god, we need guidance. Everybody sort of knew what the obligations were under the law with respect to compliance. But, those of you on that side of the table thought that it was really important, as did I, that we provide that guidance to people. So this is not a -- you know, this is not saying -- it's not partisan. It's not any of those things. It's just I think what our job is to do. 
>> I think there's a bit of a difference between removing regulations that have been held unconstitutional by the United States supreme court. 
>> Mr. Vice chairman? 
>> I sense a situation where if we're going to adopt a rule making, is it even necessary? But from the comments of these two commissioners is their opinion is we don't need it. If that's so, if it happens to be three, then we ought to make it -- we ought to forget about it and get on with business and not go through the exercise. Unless we have a majority that says we do a rule making, we can decide that fairly quickly. Rather than the painful wait and then decide it sometime later. That's just my thought. I happen to think that those are brand new areas that people would like to have the guidance in reg form as opposed to no form. Just to make it easier on them. I have to admit, I haven't tried to divine any rules on this. Maybe the consensus is we don't need it. We should see. Certainly if they're note interested, we should be aware of the thinking there. 
>> Commissioner Weintraub? 
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to reiterate what I said before. You at least, Mr. Chairman, have said public that we ought to be doing this rule making. I hope you haven't changed your mind. I think it's ridiculous to say that there are no open questions under this law. I can think of several off the top of my head where there's probably wide disagreement at this table. Transfers within accounts. Once it comes into the account, can it then be transferred for other purposes? And I like the way you commissioner Goodman said, there's no question that the advisory opinion is still good law. I'm not convinced that the advisory opinion survived the law. You talk about the well settled practice this law has only been on the books since the end of 2014, I believe. They can't be anything too well settled. It just hasn't been around long enough. I think there are questions out there and I think the party lawyers are out there doing their best to give their -- their clients the best guidance they can. But, you know, to some degree they're making it up. We had been silent. I think the law is not crystal clear. There are ambiguities and we should resolve them. And we should do it sooner rather than later. 
>> Let me make the suggestion that now that this has been brought back off the back burner, that I will go back and relook at the outline and I would hope that to do that soon, and I'll obviously in consultation with colleagues figure out what modifications we want to add to that outline and see if we can't do that within the next -- well, well, certainly starting the review right away but maybe have an ability to vote on it within the next month or two. Let's see how that process proceeds. And then we can -- because I figured that if we can agree on an outline, there will be a drafting period that OGC will have to go through. We are looking at late this year early next year. But I think in terms of getting the ball moving, the sooner the better is probably the wiser course. Commissioner Goodman? 
>> I just -- I was impressed by vice chair Walther's comment that we need the threshold of whether. Whether to do it and whether there's going to be a general consensus to do it. I don't have a strong opinion against it. I want to preface this with that comment, but I think it's an important question to ask. And if so, what. I know that the substance I saw, I have significant changes I would like to make. And I also may want to add other party regulations as part of this party rule making that I proposed a year ago and that were not accepted. But so long as we're addressing political parties, I may want to address other issues. 
>> Are you going to become a Christmas tree? 
>> Anything further? If not, we will continue discussion on this matter and I look forward to discussing both the meeting with my colleagues on this issue. Item six is discussion of any management or administrative matters. We have a sub today. Do we have any such matters to discuss? 
>> Mr. Chairman, there are none. 
>> Hearing that there are none this meeting is adjourned. [ Meeting adjourned at 11:28 a.m. EDT