This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on September 29, 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. *** >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Can you hear me now? Okay. All right. Well, I'll repeat myself again to welcome everyone to the Open Meeting of the Federal Election Commission for Thursday September 29, 2016. Will now come to order. Before we begin on our agenda items, I will turn to the Vice Chairman to make a motion regarding late submitted documents. >> VICE CHAIR WALTHER: Thank you, Mr.ÊChairman. I move to suspend the rules on the Thomas admission of Agenda Documents in order to consider the late submission of the following documents: Agenda Document No. 16-45-B, Draft B of Advisory Opinion 2016-10. Agenda Document No. 16-50, Internet communication disclaimers Draft A Agenda Document No. 16-48-A, proposal to attack to scam PACs Agenda Document No. 16-49-A, revised proposal to launch rulemaking to ensure that the US. political spending is free from foreign influence. Agenda Document No 16-43-B, technological modernization NPRM Agenda Document No 16-43-C, technological modernization NPRM This is a proposed amendment to technological modernization NPRM submitted by Commissioner Goodman. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Is there any discussion on that motion? If not, all those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes). >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Madam Secretary, that motion carries by a vote of 6-0. Before we turn to the agenda items, I also want to recognize Lisa Stevenson on the dias recently named to be acting general counsel for the Commission. She has been serving as the Deputy General Counsel since 2012 and before that she was a partner at the Law Firm of Zuckerman Spaeder She's a proud graduate of both the University of Michigan Law School as well as Amherst College where she got her bachelor's degree We just want to thank her for her willingness to step forward and serve in this capacity at this time. We appreciate the leadership and fine work you have done up to this point. Like I said, very much appreciate you've been willing to step forward and extend your leadership wings even further in this capacity as acting general counsel. So thank you very much. The first item on the agenda that's listed is the Advisory Opinion 2016-10 Caroline Goodson Parker. We are going to skip that one for right now. There's a draft that's been circulated and being printed. So we will wait for that to be circulated at the dias and probably pick it up after we consider the first couple of items on the agenda. So let's turn to Item II for right now which is Reg 2013-01, Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on technological modernization. We have Ms.ÊJessica from the Office of the General Counsel to give a presentation. And good morning. And when you're ready, please proceed. >> JESSICA SELINKOFF: Thank you, Chairman Petersen, and good morning Commissioners, you have before you three draft notices on technological modernization these drafts all propose revisions to over 100 Commission regulations to eliminate references to outdated technology such as telegrams. To modernize regulations concerning the receipt, deposit, forwarding and disbursement of funds to address electronic financial transactions and to update regulatory language in light of current and emerging computer and Internet technology for communications and record keeping. These technology issues are increasingly coming before the Commission. The drafts themselves discuss a number of Advisory Opinions, court cases, and academic and popular writing on technology and campaigns. Since the Commission published the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this rulemaking in 2013. Since last discussing a draft of this rulemaking, the Commission has issued five Advisory Opinions, and has two pending. Interpreting regulations apply to online payment processing, mobile apps, and Internet communications. And since last considered, the Commission has made public over 25 closed enforcement matters concerning the application of regulations to a variety of electronic transactions, records and communications, including the application of disclaimer requirements on Web sites, emails and social media activity, the application of the volunteer Internet exceptions and the determination of electronic receipts. As the Commission considers and continues to improve the clarity of its regulations in light of current and emerging technology we're available to answer any questions you may have. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Thank you for that presentation Ms.ÊSelinkoff and if I recall we considered this late last year if I recall correctly it was on the verge of when the newest Star Wars movie was going to be released I recall you even had a few Star Wars related asides that you included. Sad that I think that we are now picking this up when another sequel is just around the corner but fortunately we didn't have to wait until that happened to pick this up and consider this before a -- >> A prequel, not a sequel. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: I guess that's right. Are there any questions or any statements that any Commissioners have on this matter? Let me state at the outset I want to thank my colleagues for their efforts to put something together that I think we'll be able to agree upon. As Ms.ÊSelinkoff pointed out, the regulations that we have on the books contemplated a very different world in terms of how money was raised and spent and how communications were disseminated than the one we find ourselves in right now. It is kind of amusing to go back and see references to telegrams, audio tapes, microfilm, things that have quickly become outdated. And it's also interesting just to consider the most recent update that dealt with technology, the Internet rule from ten years ago. I mean, the rage at that point was blogs. How are we going to regulate blogs. And blogs are still relevant. But perhaps less so now. We're talking about mobile apps and how do our rules interact and account for those. You know, cutting personal checks, I don't remember the last time I ordered a new checkbook because everything I do now or predominantly is online, electronic transfers and certainly the impact that technology has had on us in our personal lives is certainly extended to the political realm. So it's more than overdue for the Commission to update its regulations and to account for those technological advancements. And so I thank the Office of the General Counsel, Ms.ÊSelinkoff, Mr.ÊNoti, for all of the efforts that took place down in the Office of the General Counsel to prepare this document. And like I said I appreciate all of the efforts from all of the offices to try to put together a document that we can feel comfortable with to submit for the Commission -- for the public to comment upon. I would hope that we can successfully conclude this rulemaking in the not so distant future and very much like forward to seeing how we can get our redÊbooks a little bit more in the 21st century. Look forward to voting affirmatively for this when a motion is made Commissioner Winetraub. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: I want to compliment you on your persistence in trying to get this done and bring it to the table. To help Commissioners get to a place where we hopefully can all agree. And move forward and make some productive -- it's not very sexy. But it's productive and useful and well worth doing. And I think it was a very wise strategy to not try and put things in here that loaded up with -- load it up with things that were going to raise hackles on one side of the table or the other but rather to make it sort of a main line document on things we can all agree on and it's nice to find things to agree on my compliments to you Mr.ÊChair. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Thank you are there any other questions or comments? Do we have a motion? Commissioner Hunter >> COMMISSIONER CAROLINE HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank you for your leadership in this. You worked hard to get this here today. I move approval of Agenda Document No. 16-43-B otherwise known at Draft C >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: We have a motion on the table, is there any discussion Commissioner Goodman >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: Yes, Mr.ÊChairman. I don't know that this was intended to cause hack he wills in the offer of the motion of this technological modernization NPRM, the language I'm proposing is well known to the Commission. It was in an earlier draft of this technological modernization NPRM that was circulated and considered by all offices about a little over two months ago. It didn't make the final cut. But it's important to me. And I want to propose it as an amendment to this at the table. Because when we look at the impact of new technologies, they have had a particularly profound impact on the press and media and the way in which they publish and disseminate news and commentary. So it has been pointed out to me previously that our press exemption regulation does not identify books among the media of publication. And that raises a question of both bringing us -- updating us for century's old medium but also now we have electronic books and audio books. And it's unclear when you look at our regulation whether Kindle readers and the books you read on Kindle are exempt or not. Likewise there's been some disagreement over the extent to which this agency will protect filmmakers. Films and streaming videos on the Internet. And so that raises the question of whether Netflix and Amazon Prime and those types of streaming services are going to be protected in the same way as broadcast or cable television for example now that people get their content through different media. And these are new technological innovations. The Commission had occasion a few years ago to answer an Advisory Opinion request from XM radio on whether satellite radio would be included. Satellite while broadcast and cable are referenced as technologies in our press exemption regulation, satellite is not And then of course we recently had occasion to discuss applications in an Advisory Opinion from a group called Ethique I believe I'm pronouncing it right. That was the provider of a news clipping service essentially and I have one on my Droid and you can go through and you can click through all of the issues that interest you and you can receive a tailored news clipping service that they provide and they curate for you. So in other areas of the tech modernization NPRM we are including applications. I thought it might be important to update that the -- to recognize that the new media press publication often publishes through applications, as well. Now, this proposal is not intended to make new law. It is intended to clarify the existing law. Because applications we recognized under the press exemption in the Ethique Advisory Opinion films and videos have been recognized as entitled press exemptions in the showtime Advisory Opinion, streaming video online in the Malothe (phonetic) Advisory Opinion. So by recognizing moving pictures or motion pictures in our reg we're clarifying existing law. Satellite radio, this proposal, adds to broadcast and cable satellite. And since it recognizes currently television but doesn't mention radio, why not mention satellite television and satellite radio in our regulation? Important technological update. And finally, books. As I mentioned there's centuries old technology. But now we have electronic books. And the Supreme Court has recognized that books and moving pictures are fully entitled to the press protections of the First Amendment. Not just the First Amendment protections. But they are included in the press clause. So these are well settled legal principles And here is a perfect, an opportune time to update our press exemption but I must say it's not always clear given some of the disputes and votes that we've had about whether certain things are to be exempt. So it's important to say whether or not this item entitled JEB America's Next Bush is entitled to the press exemption or not. I have tabbed it for every reference to his potential Presidential campaign and I can say this is a very unflattering view of the former Governor of Florida written by a journalist in Florida and the entire last chapter is focused on what type of Presidential Candidate and campaign he might be or excuse me; what type of Presidential Candidate and President he might be. And editorializes that he would be a bad President given this journalist's experience with him in Florida. So I think we ought to clarify in our regulations whether this publication is exempt from our regulation. It was published in the year 2007. By Penguin Books. I believe that this book is firmly exempt from our regulations. And we ought to say so in our regulatory press exemption. There are other books, here is one, Rudy who is not real flattering about Rudy published in the year 2000. And here is one of my favorites that I bought in the gift shop next door. This is called Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidential play set and this one is pretty neat because what you can do with this book, it's oriented to children. And see, you can take Hillary Clinton, pop her out here. And you can open up the Oval Office picture. And you can put Hillary Clinton right there in the Oval Office next to a picture of Bill and Hillary. Now that looks like expressed advocacy to me when I do that. I think this book is exempt from our regulation under the press exemption. But it's unclear right now given some votes of this Commission and a regulation that doesn't mention books. So for all of these reasons, I propose an amendment. My amendment is set forth in Agenda Document No. 16-43-C. And in the two places where our press exemption is mentioned in the regulations it would add the phrases satellite and radio, Internet enabled applications to recognize the Ethique Advisory Opinion motion pictures to recognize the Advisory Opinions I just mentioned and books and that's all it adds into our press exemptions, satellite radio, Internet enabled applications, motion pictures and books. Once those are added in the regulation, the Commission has a formula or a methodology for deciding whether a certain book or whether a certain motion picture is exempt under the Reader's Digest and Philips Publishing constructs. So this doesn't necessarily expand the press exemption. It merely recognizes existing media and updates them for -- to recognize technological updates. So at this time I will move Agenda Document No. 16-43-C as an amendment to the main motion. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Is there any discussion on that motion? If none -- Commissioner Winetraub I'm sorry >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: I was going to say one sentence is you worked very hard to come up with the consensus document there were other things I didn't come to the table prepared to make motions on the things that I ended up leaving out that I would have liked to put in because I'm going to support the consensus document. That's what I'm going to do >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Commissioner Ravel. >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: A similar response but not exactly. As you indicated, this issue has been pending for about a year. And these additions that Commissioner Goodman is speaking of just arrived today. And so there's really not sufficient time in my view to consider them. And I think we should sever the amendment and vote on the original document. And then we can have another discussion if we want on the amendment itself and whether or not to do something with respect to the document. But to hold it up on newly arrived information today that none of us have had an opportunity to really review and think about, I think is problematic for us. It is not conducive to thoughtful consideration of the issues despite the fact that we like the little White House play book. >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: There's nothing new about these proposals. For any Commissioner who has been here for any period of time, let me ask you, is this book exempt or is it not in your mind, Commissioner Ravel? Is it exempt under the press exemption or isn't it? >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: I don't think that that's the issue before us. The issue before us is what we're going to include in an NPRM. And I'm not here to be cross examined by you. I know that's your favorite MO But that's not what's the purpose of this meeting in this. >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: It is the purpose to deliberate so I'm trying to understand the true reason why you're opposing this. >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: Because I received thisÊthis morning at -- well it doesn't have the time. But this morning. And we've been discussing this issue and coming to a consensus on the document for a year >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: Yes except that -- Mr.ÊChairman. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Yes >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: This language was circulated to all Commissioners' offices two to three months ago. I would ask the Chair's office on when that draft was first circulated. But this language was in a draft. And every Commissioner considered it The reason it didn't make the final draft is not because people didn't have adequate time to consider it. The reason it didn't make the final draft was because in response to this, your office inserted additional language into the NPRM that suggested that we regulate the production costs of all Internet videos. The Chair's office, trying to draw calm, trying to hold down the controversial issues, asked -- requested that I take this out of that draft. So this is not new. I just insist on accountability. And I want to vote on this issue. But it was removed. So to say I'm going to vote against this today because I haven't had time to consider whether books are exempt under the press exemption falls flat I think as a reason for voting no. I think it's just time to -- it's time to just say, either I agree that books are exempt in the press exemption or I don't. But you've had months to consider that issue. >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: I presume you're just trying to utilize this argument for the Washington Examiner But in fact, I had another proposal and you rejected it. And so this is a compromise. That's what we're here to vote on. And I'm more than willing to go forward on this issue. Without my proposal, as well. >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: Substantively then you oppose addition of this amendment? It's not that you didn't have enough time to consider whether books or whether satellite radio is exempt under the press exemption. That's not the real reason you're voting no today, right? >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: I'm not engaging in a colloquy with you Mr.ÊGoodman. >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: I think the votes will speak for themselves, Mr.ÊChairman if there are any other questions of Commissioners I'm happy to address them. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: We have a motion to amend the main motion that is set forward in Agenda Document No. 16-43-C. I'll call the vote all those in favor -- >> Wait we're voting on the amendment. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Yes we're voting on the amendment proposed by Commissioner Goodman as I mentioned that's set forth in Agenda Document No. 16-43-C I'll call the votes. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye Madam Secretary, that motion fails by a vote of 3-3 with Commissioners Goodman, Hunter and myself in favor and Commissioners Ravel, Winetraub and the Vice Chairman opposed So we have a motion that was set forward with respect to Agenda Document 16-43-B, which we've been referring to as the compromise document Is there any further discussion as to that main document? Mr.ÊVice Chairman. >> VICE CHAIR WALTHER: I would like to say you've done a very good job as always on these complicated things Ms.ÊSelinkoff and congratulations for getting this altogether through all of this, for working on this >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: We'll call the votes. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Any opposed? Madam Secretary, that motion carries by a vote of 6-0. Next item on the agenda, which is Item III, Reg 2011-02, Internet communication disclaimers. I'll turn it back over to Ms.ÊSelinkoff to discuss this one, as well. >> JESSICA SELINKOFF: Thank you, Chairman Petersen. The Commission has been forwarded a draft Federal Register notice on a related matter the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Internet communication disclaimers originally published in October 2011 In light of subsequent legal and technological developments, today's draft notice proposes to reopen the comment period and it sets a hearing. The draft invites comments addressing the ways that campaigns, political committees, voters and others use the Internet particularly apps and emerging tech to disseminate and receive electric campaign information the draft seeks comments on possible technological limitations and opportunities for complying with the disclaimer requirements of the act. If the Commission approves the draft the Office of the General Counsel will submit the draft for publication in the Federal Register and we're available for any questions you might have. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Thank you for that presentation. I'll just state at the outset that this effort is somewhat of appease with the technological modernization rulemaking that we're undertaking. As we mentioned, means by which we're transacting financial business and communicating and consuming information has changed dramatically. And we have had a number of Advisory Opinions in recent years that I know this body has considered regarding how do our Internet disclaimers requirements which contemplated very different communication media, they were contemplating TV, radio, physical mail, newspapers, those were the most common ways by which political communication was transmitted and now with online communications and especially communications by mobile device, for those of us who have children who seemingly cannot go a few minutes without having some interaction with a screen and if you were to take it away from them it's as if you are depriving them of their oxygen we know how much that's become the primary device by which we receive information, consume information, transmit it. Conduct business. And how our disclaimer requirements interact with those devices has given rise to some interesting questions. Some -- some of those technologies have limits on the amount of space, on a small phone that you can use. The number of characters that can be employed. And so what this is, this effort to reopen this comment period and have a hearing, this is an effort for the Commission to gain more information. I think not only to ask the campaign world their experiences and to get information and legal analysis regarding our regulations interact with these technologies. But I would also hope that we can get comments and reactions from the high tech sector to find out what sorts of possibilities are out there to meet the requirements of the acts -- disclaimer requirements while at the same time allowing our mobile devices and the online environment in general to consider to flourish as a means for, again, political fundraising, political communications, for the ability to gather information. And so again, this has been an effort that I commend my colleagues for being willing to reopen this. And seeking additional information to see whether or not this might be something that would be amenable to a rulemaking. I think that if we could, if that were the ultimate result, I think that would be a great thing because kind of the piecemeal approach of Advisory Opinions can lead to some confusion or maybe a lack of coherence and may be difficult for someone to really know exactly what is or is not required with respect to disclaimers and how they are going to apply to online technologies. So I really look forward to hearing from again everybody in the campaign world and the technology sector to find out what sort of solutions are out there that we may not be aware of. And what sort of tweaks we might be able to make to our regulations to accommodate those technologies so that we can meet the purposes of our law while at the same time accommodating the latest technological advancements. Commissioner Winetraub. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: Just want to compliment you yet again Mr.ÊChairman for pursuing this issue which I agree is a really interesting one and I'm hoping we're going to get a lot of good comments and I think it could be a really interesting hearing. I just have a question. There's no -- there are blanks for the dates. Do we need -- maybe that's a question for counsel, do we need to fill in the dates? >> JESSICA SELINKOFF: We believe we can do that as a technical and conforming amendment after approval. >> The only date that will need to be filled in is the date of the hearing >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: That was the one I was interested in I want to make sure I clear my calendar. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Are there any other further discussion on this matter? If none, do we have a motion? Commissioner Hunter >> COMMISSIONER CAROLINE HUNTER: I move approval of Agenda Document No. 16-53-A. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: We have a motion on the table Is there any discussion on the motion? If none, all those indicate in favor by saying aye Any opposed? Madam Secretary, that motion carries by a motion of 6-0. We'll pause for just one second. Do we have Draft C in the Parker Advisory Opinion ready to circulate yet. >> I have not seen it come around. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: We'll just -- someone raise their hand, flag me down when that's ready for consideration. But until that time, we'll just move on to the next item. I'll point out that Item IV, the proposed amendments to Directive 52, that matter is being held and will be considered at the next Open Meeting. Item V, promoting voluntary compliance, we discussed this at the last Open Meeting. And Commissioner Hunter? >> COMMISSIONER CAROLINE HUNTER: Sure Just briefly, I heard from my colleagues I believe it was yesterday with some suggested edits to the document And I appreciate their feedback. We also just heard from the Office of the General Counsel so my office is working with the Office of the General Counsel to add a little bit more information. And we hope to have something finalized hopefully by the end of today or tomorrow. In order to submit it as an op ed in hopefully a national newspaper so thank you to everybody and hopefully we can come up with something that everybody can agree to very soon. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Thank you for plugging away on that and appreciate your efforts to make that possible. Now turn to Item No. VI on our agenda which is Presidential public financing legislative recommendations. The Agenda Document is No. 16-46-A submitted by Commissioner Ravel. I'll turn it over to you. >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: Thank you I put this recommendation on the agenda for discussion purposes only because I understand we have a normal process for legislative recommendations. And it seems to me that this would not go outside that normal process. But that because the issue of public financing in the Presidential program we know is so outdated and in this particular election has been a really good example of that since none of the major candidates are utilizing this nor have they for some time, it seems to me that it's appropriate for us to think about this issue. And I am open to any other suggestions or thoughts about this. But I'm very interested in us pursuing this when the time comes for our legislative recommendations. I've done a little background or actually my staff of course has done a little background on this. And every single year from 1977 until 2005, the Commission has made recommendations to Congress about the public financing program. And I really do think that it's worth doing so again. As I said, it's out of date and part of the reason that it's out of date is for some of the reasons that I've described in the memo. But also because as we have just been talking aboutÊabout technology, things have changed significantly in the way people are able to obtain campaign contributions And the use of technology for getting lots of small donors is really different now than it was at the time that this program was contemplated. And yet, the important purposes of the voluntary public financing remain. And I just want to quote to you, I mean, this is a program that we are invested with the role of administering. And the Supreme Court has said that the purposes of this financing program are to facilitate and encourage public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people. Eliminate the improper influence of large private contributions. And relieve major party Presidential candidates from the rigors of soliciting private contributions. As we know, it encourages people, more people, to participate in the political process. And it also provides incentives for candidates to reach out to a much broader base of donors in order to receive support. So I have already made the recommendations about the specific items and if there are any questions about it I'm happy to answer them but this is really just for either notification or discussion. Thank you. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Thank you. Any discussion on that? Commissioner Winetraub. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: Thank you, Mr.ÊChairman. I am just full of compliments today I want to compliment my colleague on putting together this nice package. I am particularly -- I think one of the best aspects of this is a really intriguing and innovative suggestion that came from a suggestion from Tony Corotto, Michael Mann and Norm Ornstein about permitting national participants to make unlimited spending with candidates provided they use funds from pools of contributions from small donors, small donations. And it is -- I think that's a great tool for both empowering political parties something that some of my colleagues talk about a great deal as a goal of theirs. As well as encouraging parties to reach out more to small donors. I remember after BCRA passed they said oh my God the parties will never be able to raise moneys under these limits because they had incentive under BCRA to do it they raised just as much money if not more by expanding the donor base and reaching out to small donors so this was a great incentive. The law became a great incentive to the parties to really do more outreach and that helps to strengthen the parties because it gives them not only more donors but gives them more grassroots act activists so I think that's a particularly interesting idea and a smart one. And I look forward to further discussions on this. >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: I appreciate the compliment and the compliments to those four gentleman who came up with this idea. Because I, too, have always been concerned about the problems that the parties have discussed in the age of independent expenditures. And that's one of the main reasons for this public financing program. To kind of counterbalance that. And it's more important now than it ever was. And it's important not only for individual candidates but for the parties, as well. Also, and I know there's been criticism in the press apparently about this being a big give-away. But actually we have to remember that the money for this comes from individuals who voluntarily contribute this money. It is not tax money really. It is a voluntary contribution. In fact on our Web site right now when we speak of this program, we talk about -- let me see if I can find this. What it says about it. That Congress left the single most important decision to you, the taxpayer. You decide whether you want $3 of your tax to be used for the Presidential public funding program. So it's hardly a give-away of public funds. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Are there any other further discussion on this matter? All right. It's an important reminder that that process is just right around the corner when we assemble our legislative recommendations. Certainly look forward to working with all of our colleagues in putting that package together. We'll turn now to -- well we just had circulated the most recent draft in the Parker AO and so I think we all know what's in the draft so why don't we go ahead and consider that. So we'll turn back to Item No. I on our agenda, Draft Advisory Opinion 2016-10. Caroline Goodson Parker. We have a series of drafts that we now have to consider we have Esther Gyory from the Office of the General Counsel to give a presentation and good morning to you and when you're ready please proceed. >> ESTHER GYORY: Thank you, Chairman Petersen do we have a late submitted document. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Yes we do Mr.ÊVice Chairman. >> VICE CHAIR WALTHER: I move to consider AO 2016-10 Parker Draft C as a late submitted document. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Any further motion on the table? All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Any opposed? Madam Secretary, that motion carries by a vote of 6-0 >> ESTHER GYORY: Thank you, Chairman Petersen and good morning, Commissioners before you is Agenda Document 16-45-A 16-45-B and 16-45-C, draft Advisory Opinions regarding from a request from Caroline Parker she is a U.S. citizen living in Canada who plans to solicit friends and families for donations to state and local party committees the requester asks several questions regarding proposed solicitations all three drafts conclude that Ms.ÊParker may solicit contributions and donations to state and local party committees as described in her request and notify state and local party committees about her activity. The drafts further conclude that the Act and Commission regulations require Ms.ÊParker in some instances to inquire into the citizenship status of persons whom she plans to solicit but the drafts disagree as to what circumstances would require her to do so. Finally, the three drafts conclude that Ms.ÊParker is not obligated to warn individuals whom she solicits about the prohibition on soliciting foreign nationals we did not receive any comments on the request or on the drafts. Thank you I would be happy to address any questions that you may have. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any discussion on these drafts? Commissioner Winetraub. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: I think the only controversial part of any of this, and props to Ms.ÊParker tore coming up with creative ideas for how to stir things up at the grassroots and maybe get some more money to grassroots activity and state and local parties. I think the only disagreement at all on any of this goes to at what point one would need to at least put out a warning in one solicitation that foreign nationals aren't allowed to give. And I think my answer to that is it depends on who you're soliciting and whether there's some rational basis to believe that the solicitation might end up in the hands of foreign nationals. And I think by the way that putting in that one sentence that says by the way, foreign nationals are not allowed to give to -- in U.S. elections would not be terribly onerous and would be a boom to the recipients who we're talking about small organizations we have seen on many occasions how they sometimes get tripped up on their compliance activities and I would hate to see this effort to do good for local party organizations to end up embroiling them in compliance headache because they end up with a lot of innocent, people who are trying to help not realizing they are not allowed to do it but it ends up with foreign money in their conference and they may or may mot realize that they are supposed to do something about that or that it's even there. I think there's two ways that could play out. If she's soliciting people that are living in another country but she knows at least at one time when she last knew them, they were U.S. citizens or when she last talked to them but years have gone by they are now living in a foreign country it seems to me there's a real possibility they could have changed their citizenship since they are living in a foreign country for some period of time The flip side and this is why I may be the only one that has concerns about this. But I have some concerns about the answer to Question 3, if she is soliciting people that she knows in the ex PAT community in Canada or anywhere else the odds are good that they know a lot of other people who are Canadians if she is sending them something saying pass it on and they send it out to everybody they know on their Facebook page or in their Twitter feed or on their -- through their address book through email, it's likely they are going to know a lot of people who are Canadian citizens so I think it would be actually a real boom to all concerned to just include that one sentence. And it's -- we're trying to do this on an expedited basis she's not technically entitled to expedited treatment but we try to accommodate that when we're close to the election and I appreciate that. Sitting here today, I'm not sure that I agree that it's not providing substantial safeties in the solicitation of a foreign national to send it to -- send the text of a solicitation out to somebody who likely has foreign nationals in their social media groups and just draft it up and say, here, pass this on and make it easy for them to just cut and paste or forward it on. So I'm not willing even in Draft C to vote for Answer 3, which I'm hoping we can divide up the motion so that I can support the rest of Draft C. And I don't know whether we're going to have a vote on original draft that I guess was Draft A. But I was prepared to support Draft A other than this answer to Question 3. For that reason. But I do think that this is overall -- you know it's a nice friendly grassroots kind of idea promoting -- grassroots promoting kind of idea. And I'll throw out compliments to Ms.ÊParker, too because I'm just in that kind of mood today for coming up with it. >> It's kind of diminishing to the compliment you gave me. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: No it's a good feeling for very many people. >> VICE CHAIR WALTHER: The thing is if one of us -- each one of us doesn't get one we're really going to feel bad >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: My compliments to you to Mr.ÊVice Chairman I'm not sure what for yet but I'm sure I'll come up with something. >> VICE CHAIR WALTHER: Whatever it is, I take it. I join Commissioner Winetraub on answer to Question 3. So I would support A and the first two parts of C. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Commissioner Ravel >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: Yes, I think we should do a motion first on A. But -- at which I support. But I will also support C. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Commissioner Goodman. >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: I've been trying to understand, these are nuance distinctions between A and B and C and the obligation that is imposed on somebody who wants to just in a grassroots way send out emails to people that they know. By the way, I think this is fairly uncommon. Most people I think send out more mass emails to broad lists Or they post information on a Facebook page for all comers or if there are ways to go viral. And Howard Dean sort of pioneered the I'll send out the giving applications, you know, software system to a whole bunch of people and ask them to metastasize it, to go viral with it and send it out to their viral networks and he was very successful in having people go do that and if at every step of the way Howard Dean would be held accountable or his campaign would have been accountable for who they might solicit because he didn't say, oh, and you've got to warn the other people, I don't know how these viral campaigns work, especially when it goes down to the second tier. So I guess I'm trying to understand, is your concern between B and A, is it the fact that she knows these people specifically? So if she were to broadcast it very widely and indiscriminately across social media pages and email lists, she would be okay. It's only because she is emailing specific people she knows and she knows where they reside? Is that the key distinction between -- is that the rule of Draft A? Is that what distinguishes this from all of that mass emailing and mass solicitation that goes onÊon the Internet. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Commissioner Winetraub. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: I'll defer to counsel to explain the differences between the various drafts which have been coming very quickly. And I wouldn't want to get it wrong. But for myself, I would draw the distinction between if she has some email group or whatever, alumni of the college she attended in the United States, I would think that there would be -- one would not -- yeah, there might be a few foreign nationals who attended school with her but that's for the most part not going to be a big part of that list. So I wouldn't think that you would need to have any kind of -- >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: particular finding as to each individual on that list. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: Yeah or even just to send out a blast email if she had access to some social media group that included all of the alumni of her college in the United States, I would think there would be no obligation to say, oh, what if you happen to be a foreign national, you can't. Because the vast majority of those people will be U.S citizens, it's only because a couple of her networks include either exPATs living in a foreign country who almost certainly have a lot of people within their networks who are residents of that foreign country -- I'm sorry; citizens of that foreign country and people who have been living for a long time, even though they started out as U.S. citizens, people who have been living for a long time in a foreign country and may well have changed their citizenship over the years. I think those facts suggest that there's a higher duty to warn people. And as I said, I think it's a boom to the recipients is what -- >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: I appreciate the distinction, I don't necessarily agree that -- but at least I appreciate the rationale behind it And that we're not opening this up to broad social media platform solicitation. At least I understand that's our difference of opinion on this. Just I happen to believe that if someone I know has been a U.S. citizen and has moved abroad, and now has a foreign address, it doesn't automatically require me to go back and check to say, have you renounced your U.S. citizenship. I think that's really the only difference of opinion here that I understand there are some different issues on No. 3. But you know that would implicate a list of US. servicemen with a residing -- residing in Afghanistan. I don't think any of them have renounced their citizenship I'm saying if you are looking at pockets. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: I think the fact based determination and I would agree if we were sending it out -- >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: To U.S. soldiers. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: Let's assume they are U.S. citizens. >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: I just don't think I should work under the presumption someone I know was a U.S. citizen just because they are living abroad and we all know these people, I don't know a single one of them who has renounced their U.S. citizenship and I don't think that I should have a policy that presumes that I now have to in order to contact my friend in London say, hey, I want to solicit you but before I do, I've got to get your passport or I've got to make sure you're still a U.S. citizen. But reasonable minds can disagree on that level of knowledge. And I just wanted to be sure of the rationale that we were disagreeing with. Thank you Mr.ÊChairman. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: I'll just -- I was comfortable with the answer in Draft B. I think since there's going to be a motion on Draft A, I think that if we have a motion on Draft B, I think that would be appropriate, as well. I don't disagree with Commissioner Winetraub that asking for an additional -- that it doesn't place much of an additional burden to notify the person that, hey, by the way, foreign national ban is -- state what the particulars of it are according to our law. What gave me a little more comfort in this particular case is having to be someone that you have known and knew to be a United States citizen, and you're not aware of any facts, one thing in Draft B is that we include a caveat saying that if you're aware of any other information, that would indicate to you that this person may no longer be a United States citizen then you would have that obligation so they post it on -- someone living in Canada they post on their Facebook how happy they were that they just casted a vote for the Prime Minister I think that would qualify as a changed circumstance to lead a person to inquire whether or not you've changed your citizenship. And also I think that since the individual making the solicitation, they are not the last line of defense to ensure there's not a violation of the foreign national ban if a state or local party were to receive a check and that check indicated or whatever the payment the address was from a foreign country, they would then have an obligation to inquire, to ensure that the citizenship about the citizenship status of the person who was making the payment. So for those reasons, I was comfortable with the analysis and the answer in Draft B as to that question. But I think on the whole, we're agreeing on the vast majority of these things. And I think that's good that we can answer as much of this request as possible. So at the appropriate time I'll be happy to support Draft B knowing that that will fail, I will then be voting in favor of Draft C. >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: I would comment under 6772 Obama for America that was the position taken by the Commission that although the individual was alleged to have disseminated the Obama.com URL on international Web sites, the Obama campaign ultimately had a screen and they exercised due diligence so the Commission did not pursue an unlawful solicitation against the person who operated Obama.com and the Commission found that the Obama committee had adequate screens and indeed made some refunds and exercised due diligence properly so that screen worked in that case. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: I think that was the right call in that case. I would draw the distinction, though, between the sophistication of the compliance operation of the Presidential campaign and of a local party committee. They are just not going to be staffed up in the same way and have the same, you know this to be true. >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: We have these debates in the enforcement meetings about the sophistication of the recipient and how to handle those so yes, I understand the issue >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Do we have further discussion if not let's turn to motions I don't know -- why don't we just go in order if someone would like to make a motion with respect to Draft A. >> VICE CHAIR WALTHER: I make a motion to accept Parker Draft A. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: Draft A still has the answer on Question 3 that I disagree with and I think Mr.ÊVice Chairman you said you did, too >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: I agree with it. So why don't we do flip that one first and then separate them out. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: We could separate -- >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: Can we do it question by question but do 1, 2 and 4 and then do 3. >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: Fine with me >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: We'll do 1, 2, and 4 on Draft A and then do Question 3 on Draft A and then go to Draft B and then draft C. Just want to make sure we have it all sequenced. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: Yes but we'll have to do the same on Draft C. Mr.ÊVice Chairman -- >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: It's going to make us look like we're deadlocking a lot more than we are. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: No we actually agree on this. But I move -- I move approval of Draft A in AO 2016-10 with respect to the answers to questions 1, 2 and 4. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: We have that motion on the table Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor indicate by saying aye. Those opposed, no >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: So now I want to add -- >> COMMISSIONER LEE GOODMAN: I believe I'm voting no. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Madam Secretary, that motion fails by a vote of 3-3. Commissioner -- >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: I voted aye and I want to add the next one to add in Question 3. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: So to repeat what the vote count was, Commissioners Ravel, Winetraub and Vice Chairman were in favor and Commissioners Goodman, Hunter and myself were opposed. >> COMMISSIONER ANN RAVEL: Since Question 3 is present in Draft C, which I am going to support, all forego making a separate motion with respect to this one >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Then do we have a motion to Draft B. >> COMMISSIONER CAROLINE HUNTER: I move approval of 16-45-B also known as Draft B. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Any discussion on that motion? If none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? Madam Secretary, that motion fails by a vote of 3-3 with Commissioners Goodman, Hunter and myself in favor and Commissioners Ravel, Winetraub and the Vice Chairman opposed. Now we can make a motion as to 1, 2 and 4 of Draft C. >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: I have a question. Thank you, Mr.ÊChairman I move approval of answers 1, 2 and 4 in Draft C. With respect to Advisory Opinion 2016-10. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Any discussion on that motion? If not, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Any opposed? Madam Secretary, that motion carries by a vote of 6-0. And do we have a motion as to the last question? >> COMMISSIONER CAROLINE HUNTER: I move approval of Question 3 in Agenda Document No. 16-45-C. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Any discussion on that motion? If not, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Any opposed? Madam Secretary, that vote -- that motion carries by a vote of 4-2 with Commissioners Ravel, Goodman, Hunter and myself in favor and Commissioners Winetraub and the Vice Chairman opposed. Thank you, Mr.ÊGyory, for all of your efforts on this draft. We'll now skip back to Item VII on our agenda which is the proposal to attack scam PACs set forth in Agenda Document 16-48-A I'll turn it over to Commissioner Winetraub >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: I wanted to clarify it was submitted by Commissioner Winetraub and Ravel. >> CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: I apologize want to make sure to give credit where it's due >> COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB: This is a subject that I've been increasingly riled up about. It just really makes me mad We are seeing this in increasing numbers, these PACs that are out there that solicit peoples' money and they use candidate's name and suggest they are going to be spending the money on behalf of the candidate and somehow or another the money never gets to the candidate. It never gets out into advertising but a lot of money ends up in the pockets of vendors who are often associated closely and sometimes the same people who often organize the PAC in the first place we see this in the charity context also but we don't have jurisdiction over that and I guess it's not surprising we're starting to see it in increasing numbers, also, in the political arena. And it mostly targets people who are small donors who don't have the resources of the time to spend a lot of effort trying to figure out what this particular PAC is doing -- they know who they purport to be supporting but they may not have the means or the time to figure out whether these are really legitimate operations or not. The big donors have advisors. They can pretty much take care of themselves. There was an interesting article about the actor Daniel Craig getting taken in by one of these scam PACs. But that's I think not the normal victim. The normal victim is somebody who is sitting at home and gets something either in the mail or online. And seems to be supporting a cause that they care about. They say, you know, I'm going to give them $25. They are trying to exercise their First Amendment rights and they are being thwarted. And the candidate that they are hoping to support is also being thwarted and that money is being diverted and we have sometimes gotten complaints from candidates saying hey there's somebody out there using my name to raise money and I'm not getting any of it. There ought to be a law against that. And I agree, there ought to be a law against that. And I've been thinking a lot about this. And whether there is really something that we can do about it. Because I think we have -- we have all expressed some frustration with this when it comes up in the enforcement context. And we have acknowledged that the laws are not what we would hope they would be. To protect against this. And we have from time to time made legislative recommendations to Congress. And I hope when we consider our package this year, we will also consider doing that this year. I think we need to go beyond just urging that the literal anti-fraud provisions of the act be expanded to cover this. But we also have to look at expanding personal use. And anti-self-dealing provisions because that's where the incentive is for people to do this. I mean, they are just ripping people off and it makes me mad and I want to do something about it. And I think that one thing that we can do is try to require -- in addition to asking Congress for help, I think there are things that we could do here to improve the way we format our information so that it's easier for people to go to our Web site and figure out, for example, how much of a PAC spending is going for overhead. And how much is actually going for activities to promote a candidate. I think it's become easier to confuse people in the era of super PACs because there are so many different groups out there that all claim to be acting on behalf of different candidates and we just had a loss in the Pursuing America's Greatness case, where the Court said that -- it was going to reverse the refusal to grant preliminary injunction. But the issue was whether using the name of the candidate and the name of the PAC could be limited. And the Court said no. And said that we could do other things. The Court said, here the FEC reasonably fears that voters might mistakingly believe an unauthorized activities are actually approved by a candidate if the committee uses the candidate's name and its title but there's a substantial likelihood that the particular regulation is not the least restrictive means to achieve the Government's interest. For example, the FEC could require a large disclaimer at the top of the Web sites. And social media pages of unauthorized committees that declares this Web site is not candidate Doe's official Web site the Supreme Court sees those as less restrictive alternatives but the FEC rejected proposals to have stronger or larger disclaimers in place of the overall ban. Well, some of us we're not happy with that decision. And we thought that we should appeal it to the court and some of us weren't willing to do that so I think since we're stuck with this decision, at least we ought to listen to what the Court said and try to do something to improve our disclaimers, improve our disclosure. We could have special landing pages, we could look at the size of the fonts, we could look at plain English requirements because right now the way the disclaimers are written, they make a lot of sense to campaign finance lawyers when they talk about authorized committees and unauthorized committees or authorized communications and unauthorized communications. But I'm not sure that somebody sitting in their home looking at their computer for 15 minutes in the evening and seeing the solicitation online and seeing the disclaimer is really going to understand necessarily what that means and what the relationships are and are not in the PACs and the candidates whose names they are fundraising off of. So I think we can do more and put a bunch of suggestions in here but I'm certainly open to hearing what else we can do (at this point, several minutes of conversation were not captioned due to writer switching) >> They count 90 percent of that direct mail piece, total cost, printing, postage, to its mission. >> And they will count 10 percent to purposes for filling out the 990. >> The disclosure mechanisms we have in place are baroque, and obviously toÊ?? >> Baroque or broke? >> Baroque. >> Thank you, commissioner Goodman. I'mÊ?? I never think that we should not launch an enterprise because we don't exactly know. >> And looking into our data, there may have been suggestions in the past that we need standardized categories when they are disclosing the other dispersements, so it would be easier to try to figure it out I completely get your point, and yes, of course, when people send out these solicitations, there is usually a lot of persuasive information in there, I don't think it would be a very effective solicitation if they didn't give people a reason to give their money. And I thinkÊ?? I don't think we have ever looked in a focused way how to improve the disclosure to this end and it is an excellent time to be doing it as we are updating our website. What struck me, I was looking at a particular website, I can't remember what it was, I think it came in the course of an enforcement matter and yes, they had an and it does not pop up when you first click on the page. >> I think there's a lot of small fixes that might be helpful that we can explore. I just want to point out that 2015 Politico study of FEC reports found that a subset of 33 packs sent 3 million on adds and the. >> I am encouraged by your comments, yes, it might be hard and we might not be able to do everything, but I think if we started the process, we could probably get our lawyers drafting some very useful documents that would pose a lot of good questions, we can hold hearing and invite people in to help us sort through some of these issues and. >> There have been frustrations about what we have encountered at maybe the limited tools that we have, and as. >> How you draw the lines are tricky lines and I think those have to be drawn by congress. I think you raised questions that, whether our. >> In order to better sort out how they want to allocate dollars they are going to contribute. And so I think this is a constructive proposal, I appreciate that you are interested to work with colleagues on this, I'm not prepared to vote on it today. But this came in, you know, earlier this week and we hadn't really delved into this the way we have on some of the other issues. So I would like to think about some of the ideas or other responses we might have to come up with a constructive and even a proposal that we can all agree on. But like I said, I think this is a good first step in the process. There are things that are out and within our control that we can do to helpÊ?? there are things that we can do to mitigate the harms being committed Commissioner Weintraub? >>COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I don't want to lose this vibe if we are not prepared to launch a vote on a rule making at this point, can we put together a working group of our staff and it could include our EAs if you want, but I think we should particularly reach out to our policy division and to some of our IT folks and try and put together, perhaps, a more developed set of proposals. Can we agree to at least take that step forward? >> I have no problem with that. I think that that would be ?? it would be useful to figure out which, just to get a preliminary look, to get a full extent of what is in our legal authority to do and to get a clear idea of what technological solutions, or aids to this problem that we might be able to marshal as well. So I think having a working group would be a very good idea >>COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I will count that as a victory. >>CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Okay. [ Laughter ]. Are there any other discussions orÊ?? we will take that, and we can discuss further about how we want to propose those and how we want to meet and further that process. >>COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Thank you I want to thank all of my colleagues for being open and receptive to this idea. >>CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: I will turn to item 7Ê?? excuse me, that was 7, 8, a revised proposal to launch rule making to make sure that U.S. political spending is free from foreign influence, set forth by commissioner Weintraub in 16?49?A. I will turn to Commissioner Weintraub. >>COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Thank you, and let me apologize to my colleagues for not getting this to you sooner. I made a commitment to myself after the last meeting to not drop the ball on this and keep it moving forward and it took me a little bit longer than I had hoped to try to, to come up with a set of proposals. I'm trying to move the ball forward here and trying to find ways that we could find a path forward, because I think this is a serious issue, it is not a hypothetical issue, there are many companies that have heavy foreign involvement that are active in our economy, there are, as Professor Coates pointed out in the forum, a lot of industries in other countries have heavy state involvement in them. So private companies that look private are not entirely private in some foreign countries and when they have a stake in our companies, they sort of bring with them the involvement of foreign governments, which I think is an area of particular concern. I heard what the chairman said about his concern about the people who donate to SSFs, and so I am taking that off the table. I am not proposing that we do anything that would affect any SSFs through this proposal, I'm only looking at the spending of corporate funds. I will say at the outset, there has been a little bit of misinformation generated on this topic, there is nothing in here about media entities or nothing in the original proposal about media entities I'm happy to stipulate at the outset that nothing coming out of this should affect media entities, that is not the target of this in any way, shape, or form and never was. I'm trying to focus this in on corporate spending, on money that is corporate treasury funds, media funds don't make ICs and IEs and they are not involved in what I'm looking at here. What I propose isÊ?? I have tried to organize this in a way that would make it easy to, kind of, get people'sÊ?? for people to get their hands around it So there'sÊ?? there are four proposals, four rule?making proposals that basically have already been written, one of them, which was denominated on a policy statement by three colleagues at the last meeting, which could easily be put forward as a rule?making proposal. And, as I said last time, I just don't think that a safe harbor in a document that the commission is not bound by it is a very safe harbor So it would be in your interest if you want to promote that to do it through rule?making. There are three different alternatives that were put on the table as far back as 2011 that Commissioner Walter has conveniently attached to a memo that he had in the last meeting. So we've got those all teed up with rule making language in them, and then there are a series of questions that I have asked and I try to frame them in the way that we normally put questions in NPRMs, which I would like to give to our counsel to draft a rulemaking document around these questions and those four proposals It might involve drafting some additional proposed regulatory text Looking at issues like the percentage of foreign ownership overall, the percentage particularly of foreign government ownership, the board membership of the corporations, the type of corporations, and certain implementation measures, you know, whether we should do it is through safe harbor, certification measures, I put in one suggestion that I intended to put in last time and it was lost when we were preparing the last document, that was proposed by John Pudner at the forum that we held. It was about requiring people to verify credit card contributions by getting the CVV codes on the back, which is not currently required, that would be an additional way of trying to track contributions to individuals. So, that'sÊ?? I guess that's the one thing that goes to individual contributions as opposed to corporate spending in this proposal. And if people want to add things to this list, I'm happy to add things. If people want to subtract things from the list, I'm open to talking about that, too I would hope that there is something in here that we could agree on, because, you know, we know, for example, and I refer people to the Boston Globe op?edÊby Grey and Satab that the Saudis have bought an interest in Uber and they have an interest in local elections, congress over ruled a presidential vetoÊfor the first time in 11 years empowering individuals the ability to sue the Saudis for their role in the 9/11 attacks. And the Chinese play a role, they own the Waldorf?Historia, there are all sorts of foreign entities that have investments in the United States and have potential of affecting how the corporate money is spent. When we focus on the corporate money, it crystalizes the issue. Because a manager of a domestic subsidiary that is trying to figure out how to spend the pac dollars is not spending corporate money and does not have the fiduciary duty to the foreign owner that somebody with the corporate resources would have, those are are the corporate resources, they belong to the corporation, they are obliged to do what is in the best interest of the owners of the corporation which, in some instances, are foreign entities. So I really would hope, it has been such a nice day today so far. We have gotten so much agreement, I would hope there is something here that we could agree to do. >>CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Commissioner Hunter? >> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: We got this in a note from yesterday, and to be honest, I haven't read it carefully. >>COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Read it, it is fascinating. >> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I can't wait. But I'm not ready or interested right now in repeating the same things we talked about last time, but I have one question because you brought it up right now. On page 3/5, you mentioned on the last paragraph that you want to put out for comment the three alternatives referenced by Vice Chair Walters' memorandum. I'm not sure about is this, but I think that Steve's 3 proposals were related to SSFs and ownerships withinÊ?? I could be wrong. >>COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I don't think they were limited to that, but I'm happy to modify that to take out anything to do with SSFs. That's my intention is to leave SSFs completely off the table >> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Okay. Is that what you had in mind, too, Steve? >> I'm not ready to do that yet. >> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I wanted that one piece of clarification. >> If we were going to vote today, I would support it and argue for more things. >> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: For what? >> A few more things, but this is really a nice beginning andÊ?? there's areas, in addition to this And I mentioned before, I still think we're pretty good at dividing a lot of this stuff, but it might not hurt to have a group, or a law firm or somebody, give us the ins and outs of the nuances of international corporate finance these days, including how money movesÊ?? bit coinsÊ?? so we can take these things into consideration when we are going into this. It isn't like it used to be, where everybody has their only owned corporation and things like that, it is much different now So as we go forward, I would like to suggest we consider something like that. >> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Another forum. >> Another forum >>COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I'm happy to work with you to organize that. >>CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: I just had aÊ?? we got this a little bit later yesterday, I read it this morning when I got into work and it was clear by the nature of the organization in the proposal that this is a genuine effort to try to find some common ground. I would like to, again, noodle through some of these a little bit more, see if there'sÊ?? if there might be areas of agreement, see if there are counter proposals and get a little bit of a better understanding of the nature of some of these proposals, go back and get a clear understanding. I can't remember all of the alternatives that were referenced in Commissioner Walter's, his memo. But again, like the last proposal on the scam pacs, I thought this was an effort to try to see if we can't narrow down the areas of disagreement, see if there aren't some common core ideas that we might find consensus on. And so I want to take a little bit of a closer look and I will probably be dropping by your office in the next week to ask a few more questions as well. >>COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I'm there for ya. >>CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: All right, I look forward to that discussion and let's see whatÊ?? [Off?mic comments]. >>CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: Any other questions or comments on this proposal? All right, if we don't, that brings us to the end of our agenda. The item that was calendared as item number 9, a proposed final audit report on Freedom Works for America, that is offline. I will turn to Mr. Palmer are there administrative matters to be considered? >> Mr. Chairman, there are no such matters. >>CHAIRMAN PETERSEN: This meeting is adjourned.