This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on January 12, 2017.  This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.


 
      >> I want to welcome all of you to the 2017.  I hope this is a healthy and enriching year for everyone.  Pleased to serve the commission toto fulfill its crucial commission of protecting our federal campaign finance system and particularly in providing the public with campaign finance information in the quickest and most accessible and complete manner as possible, as well as fairly and equitably enforcing the campaign finance laws under the commission's jurisdiction.
      I would like a positive note regarding the commission and its dedicated employees.  As I'm sure most of you know, the creation of the FEC arose out of the Watergate scandal in the early 1970's and this agency and the laws have undergone numerous changes over the past several decades.  Despite these changes often resulting from court decisions that dramatically impact these laws, I believe there is still important aspects of our work that may unfortunately be obscured by various controversies that have garnered considerable media attention over the years.  During my tenure as a commissioner I've had the good fortunate of visiting several nations, principally in central and South America, Europe, and northern Africa.  I learned firsthand about the electoral systems in those nations, including how campaigns are funded and how money is disclosed.  From all of what I know globally and what I've experienced, in my view there's no campaign finance disclosure system in the world that can match the level of transparency maintained by the FEC.  This agency stands out on the world stage for ensuring complete, accurate, and timely disclosure receipts and disbursements of money in federal campaigns and has performed this function in a remarkably consistent and thorough fashion for more than 40 years.
      Those who are quick to criticize the FEC should understand that it encompasses the goal of transparency in the exceedingly effective and accurate manner.  Perhaps one of the most valuable assets to our disclosure system is the manner in which we process and review the filings we receive.  The FEC has approximately 11,000 entities that file reports on a periodic basis required by law.  Of those approximately 150,000 filings occur in a twoyear election cycle and are put on the public record within 24 to 48 hours of receipt by law.  Each of these filings is reviewed by a campaign finance analyst and the filer is promptly notified if any issues arise with respect to the accuracy of the filings.  Last year our reports and analysis division which we commonly referred to as rad reviewed close to 24Êmillion pages and filers were contacted 17,000 times either by email or paper asking to clarify in order to render any inaccuracies or omissions.  Inside RAD provides assistance to filersÊ provided assistance 14,360 times last year through phone calls and meetings.  No other agency in any other countries that requires filings in a way that the FEC does or reviews the filings in advance of the election with such thoroughness.  Thousands of statements which could otherwise lead to be seen as potentially serious violations are corrected at the outset significantly reducing the number of cases that would otherwise come before the commission through formal process.
      Our campaign finance system is not without its flaws and there certainly is more that can be done with transparency.  There is currently no law asking to file electronically, most filings are received in paper form resulting in certain processing delays.  I would hope that the senate will soon follow on what most candidates in the House of Representatives have done for many years and filed reports electronically in order to provide more immediate and useful public disclosure.
      Regarding the goal of fairly enforcing campaign finance laws, it assignments the commission is often judged by how much money is generated from fines and settlements which has seen a marked decline in recent years.  I personally believe the commission should take a more robust approach in a way, it should be borne in mind that a lack of consensus on some important issues is directly tied to Congress' decision to structure the agency that no more than three of the six commissioners are from the same political party and to require a minimum of 4Êvolts for most visions.  I believe it should be more of a focus on the remarkable level of unanimity of the decisions made on a daytoday basis.  I recognize that commissioners may hold diverse views of the laws governing campaign finance, I am hopeful this year we can find common agreement and work as one body to effectively interpret and enforce these laws.
      Turning to management we have yet to receive a consensus on some important management decisions that would improve this agency's efficiency and fairness of administration these include proposals that I believe would be welcomed by our staff.  I am aware of the low staff we've already seen in recent years and have been a strong advocate for more to be done in that regard.  This week commissioner Petersen and I had the opportunity to discuss morale issues with the FEC staff during several informal sessions.  We were encouraged that so many employees chose to participate and offer their candid views.  We heard many earnest comments about specific problems along with suggestions and how to improve employee satisfaction we intend to give these immediate and serious consideration and I'm committed to doing everything I can to make the FEC a better place to work.
      Finally I want to commend and thank our wonderful staff which I consider to be as opportunity exists in any government agency.  We have employees who have served here for decades and devoted their careers to furthering agency's mission.  Our employees come from a wide variety of backgrounds, work very hard to achieve our goals.  However, they also can find challenges in the workplace for which they have no responsibility.  While we need to move forward in certain areas of management, our employees deserve to be respected and applauded for helping the agency continue its impressive work during these tumultuous times.  Their collective efforts serve to strengthen our democracy.
      I'm proud to be chairman this year and let's get to work.
      >> Thank you, Mr.ÊChairman.  I just want to say I'm looking forward to working with you as vice chair this year.  We've already had several productive meetings and I'm pleased to hear about the meetings that commissioner Petersen and you had with staff yesterday and the day before.
      I agree with virtually everything you just said and I appreciate your callings the staff, explaining how the staff has helped promote the goal of transparency of this agency in celebrating the fact we do have a campaign finance system that far exceeds those of the rest of the world and also your goal of trying to make the place a better place to work for the staff and I applaud you in moving forward in a collegial manner and look forward to working with you in this regard throughout the year.  Thank you.
      >> Thank you.  I'll call on you any time.
      Madam vice chair, do we have a late submitted document?
      >> yes.
      I move to suspend the rules on the timelyÊ so the commission may consider dropped advisory opinion 201621, document 1658C, also called Draft C.
      >> We have a motion all in favor?
      >> Aye.
      >> Opposed?
      Motion passes six to zeroes.
      We will begin with Agenda Document 1658A and B and the new draft document.
      Do we have opening discussion at this point?
      >> Good morning commissioners.
      Agenda Document 1658A, B, and C are all a tentative draft responses submitted by great America PAC.  The requester is a nonhybrid committee.  It planned to hire individuals to contact potential voters through phone banks to express the election of presidential candidate Donald Trump and intends to engage in similar activities in future elections.  It anticipates some individuals will have performed work for a state or national party within the previous 120 days.  The requester asks several questions about its proposed employment of persons who have previously been employed by a candidate or political party and whether certain communications made by those employees or requester would study coordinated communications.  The draft will include that the proposed communications would be coordinated communications if the employees in question used information from their prior employment in their work for the committee or conveyed information and the information was material to the creation or distribution of the materials.  We did not receive any comments on the request or drafts and I'm happy to answer any questions.
      >> Thanks.  Is there any discussion?  If not are we prepared for a motion?
      Do we hear a motion?
      >> Is I move approval of Agenda Document No.Ê1658C Draft C.
      >> Do we have such a motion?  All in favor?
      >> Aye.
      >> Opposed?
      >> Hearing none, motion passes six to zero.
      The next matter is socialist workers party Agenda Document 1701A.  There's been a request to hold the matter over and I would propose that we support holding it over until FebruaryÊ23rdÊwhich is the last open session meeting in February and hopefully that will be enough time to provide a response.
      >> Steve, I couldn't hear the last thing.  Did you say that we've heard back that that's enough time or that we're waiting to hear back.
      >> Hopefully that will be enough.
      >> And then just for the record that the requester asked to be delayed, is thatÊ
      >> Yes, they have.
      >> It wasn't the commission, it was the requester.  I just want to make that clear.
      >> Yes, that's correct.
      I don't know if we need a motion to do that, but just to be safe, all in favor of supporting that extension?
      >>aye.
      >> Opposed?
      So that passes six to zero.
      >> Mr.ÊChairman?
      >> Yes.
      >> The requester had asked for the consideration beyond a particular date in March.  Would you like us to inform them that the commission intends to consider it not on that date but on the dateÊ
      >> That's a good idea.  I think also we can see where they stand at that point.  Maybe they'll be fine, maybe need more time.
      >> We'll let them know.
      >> Thanks.
      >> Is next item on the agenda is proposed by Commissioner Weintraub, and that's Agenda Document 1649A.
      Would you like to proceed?
      >> I would.  Thank you, Mr.ÊChairman.
      This is the continuation of an issue that I've been talking about for the better part of a year now and in some ways going back to 2010.  I want to make it clear that this is an issue that has been of concern to at least some commissioners really since Citizens United, the potential that with more corporate spending and renewed avenues for corporations to be directly intervening in elections that this could provide a pathway for foreign actors to try and use corporations as a pathway to influence our elections, and this is something that I've been concerned about for quite a while long predating the news we have heard in recent months and days about foreign actors who are plainly willing to take some aggressive and innovative steps to try and influence our elections.  This is not a response to that, but I have to say that having testimonial read about this in the papers and heard what our security agencies have said about this, I am even more concerned now than I was when I started.
      For those who were not following along in all of its painful detail, we had proposals on the table as far back as 2011 to try and address this topic that we could not get four votes to move forward in a rule making.
      Last year in March I wrote on this topic with the cooperation of then Chairman Petersen.  I convened a hearing last summer.  Brought in a bunch of experts to talk about issues related to foreign influence in our elections and not all had the same ideas, not all had the same ideas I had but I think there was a high level of concern demonstrated by a wide range of people on this topic.  I brought forward a proposal at the beginning of September to start a rule making and my colleagues said they thought it was too vague so I narrowed it down and brought another proposal forward that was more targeted, that focused in on issues related to percentage of ownership, board membership of corporations foreign government ownership, the type of corporation, and implementation measures, and I also at that time offered to take off the table issues related to PAC spending because that seemed to be something that was of particular concern to my colleagues and I was hoping to find a path forward by doing that and as I said at the time and I'm happy to say again, none of this was ever intended to address media corporations.  So I haveÊ I have a list of issues in my memorandum of SeptemberÊ28th, 2016, which I placed on the agenda for today I think that's is ripe for consideration.  It's been out there for a long time now and whether I presented this my colleagues asked for more time and I went back and had several conversations with my colleagues and every time the answer was we need more time.  So in December I said okay but I'm putting it on the agenda in January because I think we've had enough time to think about this and decide how to move forward.
      So what I would like to do is make a motion that would incorporateÊ that would launch a rule making that would incorporate all the ideas in my memorandum of SeptemberÊ28th, would also put out for public comment some ideas that were first proposed in 2011 but chair Walther incorporated into a memorandum on SeptemberÊ15thÊof last year and my Republican colleagues also put out a proposed policy statement on SeptemberÊ15thÊand I propose that we include those ideas as well, put them all out for public comment, see what the public has to say about all this and see if there's a path forward to address what I consider to be the very important issue of ensuring that our elections are free of foreign influence.
      I don't want to pick on anybody, we've heard about Russian activity, we've heard about Chinese activity.  There are a lot of companies out there that have ownership that's a little bit obscured that may have ties to foreign governments and some of these companies have been actively trying to buy up properties in the UnitedÊStates and I think we niece to be concerned about companies that are owned or controlled by foreign nationals and in some cases foreign governments and in some cases we don't even know whose owning or controlling them, are spending money or have the potential to spend money in our elections.
      The problem is exacerbated by the fact there is so much spending that we still don't know where it's coming from.  According to ownership secrets, since the 2010 cycle over $800Êmillion in dark money has been spent in our elections.  We don't know whose behind that.  I would prefer to address that topic directly to tackle and improve transparency on political spending but every time that topic has come up either in the enforcement context or the policy, the rule making context, there have not been four votes to go forward on that.  I think at a minimum if we can't figure out everything about the money being spent in our elections we ought to at least take steps to ensure that it's not being spent by foreigners or by companies owned or controlled by foreigners.
      We've been here before, had this discussion before, that's my proposal is that we take everybody's ideas and put them out for public comment and see what the public has to say about this and maybe they'll have some additional good ideas for us that we could consider to move this process forward.
      >> Do we have a motion on the table for any further discussion?
      >> Did you make a motion.
      >> I described a motion.  I am happy toÊ
      >> I'm not suggesting you need to make it right now.
      >> I'm happy to do so.  I formally move that we open a rule making and include as I said all the ideas in my memorandum, the chairman's memorandum, my colleague's memorandum and put it all out for public comment and have the staff draft appropriately regulatory text to put out for public comment to match up with the ideas in those memorandum and see if we can move the ball forward.
      >> Comment?
      >> I'm prepared to vote on the motion.
      >> Okay.  Vice Chairman?
      >> thank you, Mr.ÊChair.  If there's no other comment, I'd like to comment.
      Thank you.  I will be supporting the motion and I think that for us to purely have a discussion regarding these issues that incorporates all of the suggestions from every member of the commission as well as incorporating what the public believes about these matters and thinks about what would be appropriate rule making is really important for us to do.  I mean, I don't want to repeat what Commissioner Weintraub has said, but it seems to me if this commission cannot even reflect on the serious issues that are facing our country in the campaign finance arena, then we are not doing the duty that you, Mr.ÊChairman, spoke about right in the opening comments, about the crucial mission of protecting the integrity of the nation's campaign finance system.  So it seems to me that this motion has been significantly narrowed from previous motions that were criticized for being too expansive and it is a discussion that is a long time coming and really relevant to what we're seeing in the campaign finance arena today.  So for that reason I think we should go forward on the rule making.
      Thank you.
      >> Thank you, commissioner.
      Any further comment from anybody else?
      I'll support the motion.  I'd prefer a more detailed motion but the bottom line is I've been strongly supporting for the issue of trying to get ahold of the campaign forÊ foreign investment in our campaigns for some time.  I think the matter became much more complicated with the advent of Citizens United because the participation of corporations in our campaign finance seen now is much more complicated because of the various myriad of ways in which corporations can structure themselves whether they're by equity ownership, voter ownership, subsidiaries, combinations such that that methodology now is before us in a way that has not been before, and I think that makes it more difficult for us to actually get a grip on some of the money that's moving through our campaign finance system.  So I support that and if there's nothing further then we can call for a vote.
      All in favor?
      >>aye.
      >> Three in favor.
      Opposed?
      >> No.
      >> The record shows that Commissioner Goodman, Petersen, vice chair oppose it and I support it along with Commissioner Weintraub and commissioner Ravel.
      >> Mr.ÊChairman?
      >> Yes.
      >> I'm going to try an even narrower proposal, see if we can get support for this.  I would hope that we would have agreement that we don't want foreign governments melding in our elections in particular, so I move that we narrow the proposal to just address issues ofÊ that are raised in topic No.Ê3 in my memorandum, itemsÊ7 andÊ8, there a we open a rule making to consider limits, if any, should be considered on the U.S. election spending of corporations owned in whole or in part by foreign governments or subsectors, whether there are permissible levels of ownership by foreign governments or state actors in terms of U.S. political spending, and to consider any arguments that militate in favor of spending in U.S. elections by corporations wholly owned by government or state actors and those opposed and that we hear from the public on this.  I think this is a topic that is really of great interest to a lot of people these days and we just had a determination that the election apparatus is part of the essential infrastructure of ourÊ as seen by our security agencies in our country.  I think the way we fund our elections is similarly critical to our democracy and we ought to take whatever steps we can to ensure that the spending that goes on in our elections is by U.  Is citizens and is not controlled by foreign governments.  So I'm moving now to open a rule making that will only address the topic of preventing spending by foreign government owned or controlled corporations.
      >> Point of order, Mr.ÊChairman.
      >> Yes.
      >> That motion was just made.  It was part of a larger motion.  It failed by a vote of three of three.  I'd raise a point of order that that matter has been raised, voted on this meeting, and you can not address the same issue in the same meeting by making the same motion twice in the same meeting.
      >> I'm notÊ if I might justÊ
      >> Commissioner Weintraub.
      >> It's not the same as the earlier motion since the earlier motion considered a great many other topics, and it seems to me that we frequently have situations where somebody says, well, I can't support this part but I might support that part so it's just a much narrower version of what was just voted on.  It strikes me as completely conceivable by that's not likely but completely conceivable that somebody on the other side of the table might say, well, I don't want to address board membership of the corporation or the type of corporation or whether we want to require verifying CVV codes, but I'm willing to tackle the foreign government issue.
      >> That point often arisesÊ
      >> Commissioner Goodman.
      >> That argument arises in bodies we are governed by Roberts Rules and Roberts Rules has a procedure for taking those matters up separately where someone might object to one section but another and that's a motion for division of the question.
      There is an alternative mechanism which was available, that may have been available and that was to take up matters Seriotim but a division of the question would have permitted taking those matters up separately.  The mover chose not to take that procedure route so we have now voted on this.  This has been defeated and it is improperÊ this second motion is improperly placed before the body.
      >> Ms.ÊWeintraub.
      >> Mr.ÊChairman, I'm really surprised by this because we don't usually do business that way at this commission.  I cannot recall anybody ever raising that type of point of order in the 14 years that I have been on this agency.  I have never encountered that.  So I will ask our council whether the motion is in order or whether I would have to bring it back at a subsequent meeting, but are you that determined to not vote on my motion thatÊ
      >> We just voted.
      Mr.ÊChairman, this is the chair's call on Roberts Rules.
      >> I'll try and keep control here.
      What was your comment?
      >> This is the chairman's call.
      >> Let meÊ I want to take a look at our parliament tear, but I don't have a copy of the motion before me.  Are you saying Topic two and topic four are out and Topic 3 is in?
      >> Yes, it's just on Topic 3.
      >> Just on Topic 3.
      >> Just on Topic 3.
      And I would like to inquire to our attorneys as to whether there's anything improper about my motion.
      And as I said, if it's improper today, could you bring it back at a subsequent meeting if my colleagues really refuse to vote on it today and they would like me to bring it back at a subsequent meeting, I'll do that.
      >> Mr.ÊChairman, I'll yield to my point of order.  We can proceed to a vote.
      >> But Mr.ÊChairman, I do have.
      (Audio cut out).
      >> UnitedÊStates were caught and punished under existing laws on this subject.  Our national intelligence agency the NSA have projected.
      (Audio cut out).
      The way in which foreign governments intend to continue influencing our elections in the future.  It's in this public report.  And it's through public media and online communications.  Not once doesÊ has our national intelligence apparatus told us that they intend to do so through the mechanisms that the Chinese tried to use in 1996.  And so I ask how is your proposal that's pending here today tailored to what our national experts tell us are the strategies that have been used and are intended to be used.
      >> It is not tailored to that report.  It is tailored to a larger problem, which is, A, we know that foreign governments are interested in influencing our elections and are every day coming up with new strategies to do so, and B, we have jurisdiction about campaign finance.  There are things that we cannot address and there are things that we can address, and, you know, you canÊ I read your proposal that you put out with your colleagues to state that if a domestic subsidiary was wholly owned by aÊ as long as it had UnitedÊStates based money and they were UnitedÊStates actors were at least nominally in charge.  Spending that you were okay with that, even if it was 100Êpercent owned by a foreign government.  So I'm seeing some inconsistencies between what I'm hearing you say at the table today and what I read in your proposal, but I'm happy to put all of that out, as I said, for public comment and let's see what the public thinks about your ideas and my ideas.
      >> Mr.Êgood man.
      >> I don't see it as a competition to see what they think about your ideas versus my ideas.  There needs to be a demonstrated predicate to show that this is a necessary rule making for this body to act responsibly to move forward, where this body identifies a particular need.  Now, I would ask since I believe, and I have voted in the past, on a policy clarifying existing law and the prohibitions of existing law, and I have shown how existing law has been fully adequate to capture, identify and punish people who try to circumvent those laws, including foreign governments in the 1996 cases.  I would ask where is the factual predicate since someoneÊ Commissioner Weintraub you're proposing that we issue for a change in existing law, you bear the burden of demonstrating an evidentiary basis that there is need to do this.  So do you have an example of a wholly owned U.S. company, wholly owned by foreign government that is making contributions or expenditures in our election system today?
      >> Commissioner Weintraub.
      >> Is Commissioner Goodman, there has never been a standard in this agency that in order to launch a rule making we have to first amass an evidentiary record.  This reminds me of your standard for launching investigations in the enforcement context where you seem to insist that other people do the investigations and provide us with evidence before we can even launch an investigation.  Now we're importing that notion into the rule making context we need to have an evidentiary basis for launching a rule making before we can put ideas out for public comment and actually I think it is a competition.  I think that is part of what the rule making process is about.  It's about allowing the public to weigh in on issues of importance.  Now, maybe you don't think this is important, maybe you don't see this as a problem.  That's fine.  You can vote it down.
      >> Mr.ÊChairman, it's not that I don't believe it's important.  This is an important issue.  My position all along and we articulated this when we had this vote last year was that I believe that the existing laws make what you're proposing already illegal and are adequate to capture cheaters.
      >> Commissioner vice chair.
      >> I think this is yet another example of different ways of interpreting the statute, and this one is, along with the lines of what Commissioner Goodman was saying, there is a limit on our authority to promulgate rules.  Right in FECA, powers of the commission.  And it's a previous provision four37D and now it's 30107A8.  Powers of the commission, specific authorities.  The commission has the power to develop such prescribed forms and to make, amend, and repeal such rules as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.  We look at administrative agencies, the bureaucracy as having limits placed on them by Congress.  Our limits are specifically in the statutes saying that we may do a rule making but as necessary to carry out the provisions.  What Commissioner Goodman is saying, and I go he, is that the burden isn't on the public to prove to you that there's nothing bad going on here.  The burden is on us to determine whether some rule making is necessary to further the purpose of the act, and as Commissioner Goodman pointed out, there is no evidence that you have said or is in any of the national intelligence reports that a foreign government has tried to undermine our system and if there is evidence and we certainly would consider opening a rule making, it's a completely different burden of proof and it doesn't surprise me to hear that your view of the regulatory authority is broad, sweeping, and that again the public has the burden of demonstrating that once again, you know, nothing, no matter what we do is going to be good enough for you and you've decided and even stated in the New York Times article that you authored that this distinction that you describe about taking on Citizens United provides ways to, quote, blunt the impact of the decision that gave corporations the right to spend unlimited sums of money on federal elections.  So everybody knows that your grand standing here is part of an effort to blunt the impact of UnitedÊStates supreme court decision.
      >> Commissioner Weintraub.
      >> I resent yourÊ
      >> That's what you said.
      >> I said that.  I didn't say that I was grand standing.  That is your very personal attack on me, and I resent that, and I resent your implication that I am not sincere in my desire to prevent foreign influence in elections and that I'm not sincere in my concern that we are not doing enough to prevent that influence, and I don't think that I'm alone, and I do not think that it's the public's burden to persuade us not to act but I do think the public has a role to play in what we do and that their views matter and that we should take their views into account.
      >> And I think you're frankly, a little bit afraid to hear what the public comments might be if we were to put this out for public comment.
      We plainly have a statutory basis to do this.  There is a law on the books that prevents direct and indirect foreign influence in our elections.  This is a topic that's been discussed at great length in the public arena recently, and as I said, we have seen very innovative ways that foreign actors have tried to intervene.  We have seen reports, and again, I can't certify as to the accuracy or not of what I read in the newspaper, but I've certainly seen reports by investigative reporters that indicate there are foreign actors who are using corporate vehicles to spend money in our elections.  So I'm not making this up out of whole cloth and we have seen some very aggressive maneuvers by various foreign entities and I think that we owe it to the public to take on this issue.  You know, you don't want to do it, that's fine.
      >> I missed the second to the last thing you said, that thereÊ I'm sorry, Mr.ÊChairman.  Sorry about that.
      I just was reading something when you said the second to last thing.  You said that there is evidence that foreign nationals haveÊ I just missed what you said.
      >> Well, I'm not sure what you're referring to but what I said was theÊ there have been reports that I can't verify from personal knowledge, but there certainly have been reports in the newspapers of foreign actors funneling money through corporate entities to try and influence our elections.
      >> Are you talking about the intercept article?
      >> That is certainly an example of that.
      >> But is that what you're specifically talking about.
      >> That is one specific example, yes.
      >> Is there anotherÊ I'm just curious, is there another one?
      >> I don't have another one off the top of my head.
      And we have also seen innovative and aggressive maneuvers by foreign actors to try and influence our elections and I am concerned thatÊ I see no reason other than whether they have the money to spend in this way why entities that are notÊ that are plainly interested in trying to influence our elections and are using a lot of other aggressive and innovative tools to do so would not if we give them the leeway and the opening to do so also use our campaign finance system to do so, and as I said, you know, $800Êmillion in dark money and we don't know where it came from, so none of us is in a position to say here at this table today that we can, you know, absolutely guarantee that none of that came from foreign actors.  We just don't know where it came from.
      >> I'm going to add a comment at this point.
      I'll support the motion, but I think it's not going to pass and so I think it's easy to say to support the motion.  If we're going to get into this the other issues that were covered by Commissioner Weintraub would have to be included in order to have a sensibleÊ really a truly sensible approach toward the topic.  Board membership is not as important as stock ownership when it comes to corporations.  Stock ownership can be in various forms and it can be indirect and it can be partially in nonvoting and it can be some voting and some not voting on certain topics.  So it can be very complex but the bottom line is who governs the money in a corporation.  Not so much who spends it but who governs it.  That's when I think the nub of what we want to go to if Citizens United in the influx of corporate spending we should do that the least hear from people who are really on this.  I practiced law for a few years I certainly have seen the attempt to acquire control through quiet ways in using stock ownership or LLCs that own part of this but the LLC is really owned by somebody else and that they happen to own an LLC that owns another 30Êpercent of the company.  I think we owe responsibility to try and be able to go that route if we decide we want to do that.  So I'll support the motion.
      Go ahead.
      >> Thank you.
      Commissioner Weintraub, I asked you and then you then referenced the intercept article and obviously we can't get into details of pending enforcement matters before us but there are a number of them and we agreed at the meeting in September to expedite those.  As you know, we just received them in the recent past and we're committed on our side of the aisle as I'm sure you are as well to getting those matters done quickly.  I can't talk about the intercept article and you can probably read between the lines, but we're happy to consider any law enforcement matters that come before us and we expedited these matters in particular.
      >>
      >> I just wanted to weigh in on just a couple comments.
      When deciding whether or not toÊ we believe that there is a certain quantum of evidence that's been presented that justifies undertaking that rule making and that may vary on a commissioner by commissioner basis.  As I've been studying this issue and looking at whether the integrity of the foreign national contribution ban has been, you know, undermine or at least the changing circumstances that resulted from the Citizens United decision requires or demands that we revisit how robust the existing provision still is, you know, I've been looking at, one, are the tools, has there been evidence of the tools that we already have in our possession, statute and regulations, are they adequate to deal with foreign nationals who may be making contributions, and as of yet I haven't seen evidence that those tools aren't adequate, and also we've all been reading the papers, all been reading the news about hacking and other efforts that may have been undertaken to sway the election, but none of those involve campaign finance.  They don't involve making contributions or expenditures that fall under our jurisdiction and so I understand the concern about efforts to undermine our election system, but we are limited to the jurisdiction that we oversee, which is the campaign finance laws, and there hasn't been any evidence that we've seen on that front, and more over there was an interestingÊ I mentioned the concern that we are considering with respect to the proposal that's before us really does focus on the corporations, many of which are publicly traded commercial enterprises and the concerns about whether or not foreign ownership or at least significant ownership of stock in those companies could impact our campaign finance system in some way.  Ken Doyle who is here covering this event put out an interestingÊ and I think very thoroughly researched article yesterday talking aboutÊ and it's titled soft money era not back yet as few companies contribute.  And it goes onto talk about how less than 1Êpercent of disclosed contributions to major super PACs have come from publicly held corporations, how I think the estimate is that about roughly 3.5Êpercent of money spent in independent spending in the last I think it mentions in this case the 2014 elections cycle were spent by trade associations or section 501(c)4 organizations, and that just to quote his number, it mentioned that in 2014 only 36 publicly held companies made any contributions to super PACs in the 2014 election cycle and that amount, you know, consisted of $4.6Êmillion in total.  In 2016 there were 33 contributions totaling $5.3Êmillion and it says less than 1Êpercent of total super PAC receipts and just for some sort of context by contrast Tom stair, who was a wealthy donor to super PACs himself contributed 86.3Êmillion and Shelton Alderson contributed 77.7.  So at this particular time, the amount of spending by publicly traded corporations, by commercial businesses has really amounted to just a very, very small amount of the total spending, and so I think that somewhat mitigates the overall concern about these are now being used to funnel millions upon millions of dollars into our campaign finance system.
      Now, that could change.  I think that article also talks about how there were a few companies that did, maybe the factual record that the commission has access to will change.  Maybe new allegations will arise and I think we as decisionmakers on this law and on this provision in particular always have to be open to considering new evidence and new information that may come before us, but at this particular point the quantum of evidence that I see before us I don't think justifies opening rule making at this time.  Like I said, I know what that standard is can be different from commissioner to commissioner, but as Commissioner Hunter mentioned, we have the opportunity currently as commissioners to see how well and adequate our statutory and regulatory bans on foreign national contributions will operate in actual cases before the commission, and I think that will be helpful to undertake that exercise to see how this is proceeding.
      >> Commissioner Ravel, do you have your hand up?
      Commissioner Ravel, are you awake?
      >> Sorry, I had the phone on mute.
      Yes, I am awake.
      >> Is do you have any comment at this point in our discussion?
      >> No, I'm fine.  Thank you.
      >> Is all right.  Thanks. 
      Commissioner Goodman.
      >> So it is important I believe that before we leap into rule making there be some factual need to do so.  An evidentiary basis that the existing rules are inadequate.  And I'm not hearing that.  The so the current motion is focused on an American company that would make contributions or expenditures that is owned wholly by a foreign government.
      >> Wholly or in part.
      >> Okay.
      And if you are saying in part, then I propose what you're proposing is that if a sovereign wealth fund of a foreign company owns some stock purchased above a publicly traded company that we would go down the road of defining either some percentage or some other mechanism to say some degree of foreign ownership in a publicly traded American corporation traded on the New York stock exchange may be prohibited from exercising its rights under Citizens United.  I would need a stronger evidentiary basis before I took away the first amendment rights recognized by the supreme court in the Citizens United decision to say that thisÊ that the current rules are being abused.  But I hear none.  The only example you've given is one article that didn't deal with an American corporation, which happened to be closely held by a foreign government, by an individual business owner or small group of business owners who happen to be foreign.  I've heard no evidentiary basis that would support this pending motion.
      Second, before I would vote issue an NPRM, I would want to be confident that it is statutory based and that it is permitted under our existing statutes.  And we have a definition of what a foreign national is, and it is tied to the foreign agent's registration act and the definition there.  And I don't see any room in the definition of for research national for us to begin interpreting a foreign national based on some partial ownership by a foreign interest.  The definition has been quite clear for a long time.  Nor do I see in the definition of foreign national a foreign principle in the foreign agents registration act the ability for theÊ this agency to begin setting those percentages that you've contemplated in these because everywhere of the law sets a percentage basis, some bright line rule.  It's always been done by Congress.  If you look at the FEC licensure rules, Congress set a 20Êpercent ownership rule.  Wasn't done by regulation of the FEC, it was done by Congress.  Same thing at the SEC.  In all the laws that do that, Congress has drawn that line.  Congress has chosen not to do that.  They had the option to do so when they tight end the rules in BICRA and then from everywhere involved they said that BICRA did not alter this definition.  That leavesÊ so under FERA I don't see how he would distinguish between American corporations traded on the U.S. stock exchange that has some percentage ownership by sovereign wealth fund purchased on the open market versus a corporation that has foreign individual owners, but that's what this motion suggested that we do by signaling out foreign government only ownership and I don't see how the statute and definition of foreign principle, which is our definition of foreign national can be altered in that way through regulation.  What that leaves you with is the issue of indirect involvement of the foreigners in the American corporations political activities.  And the regulatory implementation of indirect.
      Now, Congress said by indirect we didn't intend to reach that foreign ownership as constituting the indirect involvement.
      So in light of that, there commission has had 40 years of experience in this area and I believe the mouse trap, the rules this commission has adapted can capture the examples that you have given and the involvement that you're saying might be occurring, might be, although we have no evidentiary basis that it is, but I believe the current mouse trap we have and the rules against any foreign involvement in an American's political spending here are adequate to capture the harm you think might befall us and certainly a proposal doesn't propose any of the identified threats by the national security apparatus, the UnitedÊStates, because they say the wholly ownedÊ because you say the wholly owned Russia today, a foreign owned media corporation that's identified by our national security apparatus as the principle media for Russian propaganda is excluded completely from your proposal.  And that leaves websites, international labor unions, which you don't want to address.  So you made an allegation that I don't think this is important.  I think this is very important.  And to underscore the importance of it and that I believe the current law is adequate, I have revised the proposed policy that I proposed six months ago when we last addressed this issue and had a vote and I would like Mr.ÊChairmanÊ
      >> Have any of us seen this thing?
      >> I will distribute it now, Mr.ÊChairman.  This is in order.
      >> Is you needed months and months to look at mine and you expect us to look at something in five seconds at the table and vote on it immediately?
      >> Let's wait to be called on before we get into that.
      >> I'll ask my staff to distribute copies.
      You have seen this before, Commissioner Weintraub.
      >> I have seen it before?
      >> This is the proposal that we made and voted for approximately six months ago.
      >> I thought you said you amended it.
      >> I have, and I will point out the most important amendment that we have.  Not only does it still contain the certification mechanism where an American company that donates to super PAC would certify their compliance with the foreign national prohibition.  Not only does it underscore as it always did, but we have added a new section three on PageÊ13, which underscores the prohibition against foreign nationals and that would include foreign governments, officials, and citizens from having any involvement whatsoever in the decisions of American citizens at an American company to makeÊ to engage in political activity.
      First, the foreign nationals cannot dictate, direct, influence or have any input into decisions regarding contribution, donations, expenditures, or other related disbursements to foreign national directors or officers cannot vote on any matters concerning U.S. citizens to make contributions, donation, expenditures, electioneering communications or other electrician related disbursements.
      Three, foreign nationals cannot select the U.S. citizens who will decide to make contributions, donations, expenditures, electioneering contributions, excuse me, that's to say electioneering communications or other electrician related disbursements.
      Four, foreign nationals cannot judge or review U.S. citizens for their performance in making contributions, donations, expenditures, electioneering communications or other election related disbursements.
      We have crystallized and clarifyÊ now all of this is existing law but we have put that into this document to underscore the breadth of the prohibition on any foreign involvement in the decisions of American citizens in American companies to do this.
      I would at this time, Mr.ÊChairman, move this document as a substitute to the pending motion.
      >> Mr.ÊChair.
      >> Commissioner Ravel.
      >> Mr.ÊChair, I'd like to emphasize that obviously I have not seen this document.  This document has not been forwarded to me and so I will be objecting.
      >> Yeah, my opinion, you know, it would be out of order to hear itÊ
      >> I can't hear you I'm sorry.
      >> In my opinion it would be out of order to vote on it today under the circumstances of just having seen it, but it's a serious proposal, very interesting to me and I think we should, you know, pursue it perhaps next meeting.
      >> Mr.ÊChairman, point of order.
      >> I'm just giving my opinion.
      >> Well, a motion to amend a pending motion is always in order.
      >> Yes, it is.
      >> and I'm following Roberts Rules I have that right to propose that amendment in nature of substitute to a pending motion.  It's germane.  That's really the only standard is germaneness.
      >> Point of order.
      >> Commissioner Weintraub.
      >> Just for parliamentarians, if Commissioner Goodman moves to amend my motion, does that motion require four votes to pass?
      >> Yes.
      >> So we don't have to vote on the substance of your motion until we first vote on whether.
      (phone ringing interruption).
      >> No, no the to consider it.  I expect the chair to give me a vote on my proper motion to amend the pending motion and at that point if that fails, it will go right back to your main motion and have a vote on that.
      >> I'm interested in hearing from our counsel on this.
      >> We'll take a fiveminute recess.
      (Recess).
      >> Commissioner Ravel.
      >> I'm here.
      >> We're back in order and, yes, I think the motion to substitute is entitled to consideration and at this point it's available to be voted on if somebody wants toÊ actually, why if there's actually a motion at this point.  So if you consider a motion andÊ
      >> Yes, my motion to amend the pending motion is now pending on the floor.
      >> Okay, based on this document.
      Commissioner Weintraub.
      >> A couple of comments.
      Just seeing commissioner Petersen's comments earlier, I also read that article and I thought it was very interesting, although again it only talks about disclosed money.  So we don't know what's in the dark money.  We don't know what we don't know.  And it's not an insignificant amount of money out there that we don't know what's going into it and several times both commissioner Petersen and good man have suggested on focusing on publicly held corporations, and I'm not.  And indeed that was one of the topics brought up at the forum and it was one of the items that was in my original motion was whether we should, whether and if so we should address publicly held corporations, privately held corporations, limited liability corporations, and nonprofit corporations and their different ownership and government structure.  It was never my intent to limit any of my proposals just to publicly held corporations.
      I'm the muse by Commissioner Goodman's reference to RT every time this topic comes up Commissioner Good plan complains either that I'm trying to regulate the media or apparently that I'm not trying to regulate the media and either way he has a problem with it.  I was trying to take it off the table as a controversial subject that we could still make progress on the overall issue without bogging ourselves down in that.  The.
      Further as I said before, my most recent motion is, you know, based on two paragraphs in a blew document in a document that has been in front of you since September.  Numerous occasions since then I've tried to engage you guys on this topic and I kept hearing we need more time, we need more time to discuss this amongst ourselves and then you show up at the meeting and in the middle of the meeting you hand us a document, it's not even on the agenda.  We haven't even had the motion.  I guess that's another question for counsel is can we vote on a document that's not officially in front of us because it was not made into an Agenda Document and not incorporated into our usual motion to consider late submitted documents.  This is a super late submitted document, but I am justÊ I don't know what to say about commissioners who say they need months and months to consider each iteration of my proposal but they can expect me to with literally two minutes notice, here's a document, read this and vote on it right now.  Commissioner's not at the table and she doesn't have it in front of her at all.  So I don't know how you would expect us toÊ you seem to have a very different standard for how much time you need to consider before you're willing to vote on something and how much time you think we ought to be willing to have, you're willing to give us before we vote on something.  But, you know, on my very brief perusal of this document, of the amended document and, you know, yes, I've seen some of it before, but not the part that obviously is brandnew, it seems that the citations are all to decisions about tax spending and I was particularly trying to avoid the situation of dealing with tax spending because that raisesÊ because that money is by definition contributed by U.S. citizens and we're talking about corporate spending that is not the case, and it seems to me that what you're setting up here is, again, a formalistic structure by a Company wholly owned by foreigners, foreign nationals, governments, actors whether everyone who is a domestic employee understand they're making their apparent supervisors happy and you're setting up some formal structure by which we say that foreign nationals cannot judge or review U.S. city extense in making their contribution expenditures or other election related disbursements but I don't know howÊ I don't even know what that means, frankly.  How do we have jurisdiction to tell some foreign board what they can consider in deciding the compensation package of one of their employees?  I don't really understand how this would work in implementation.  So I'm happy to consider it further for more than five minutes, but on first glance I think it still raises the same problem that I saw with your original proposal, which I am happy to put out for public comment along with my proposals and I wouldÊ I think it would be very illuminating to hear what somebody besides the six of us thinks on this, but it seems to me that it still sets up this formalistic structure where as long as you've got, you know, U.S. citizens who are nominally making the decisions that you could have a company that is wholly owned by foreign actors makingÊ engaging in political spending in this country and you would be blessing that through this policy.  So I would not be able to support that.
      >> Commissioner Goodman.
      >> Yes, Mr.ÊChairman.  Responding to some of the points made by my colleague.
      First, about Russia today, the point I make is not thatÊ this is your proposal, not mine, but to show that it is your proposals but underinclusive and overinclusive in many ways, and my point is I'm not proposing that we restrict American's access to websites such as Wikileaks or that we propose censoring those websites or Russia today or its Web site.  My point is to show that your proposal in what you claim to be recent revelations is misdirected and that raises a question for me of what's the object of your proposal?  And I go back to your point, your position in the New York Times article which is you're trying to clip the wings and countermanded the supreme court decision and you found a mechanism to do that.  And I say that because otherwise if foreign influence were the true objective of your proposal here today, I would expect you to be addressing the issues and mechanisms for influencing public opinion that have been addressed by the experts in this field.
      That's the reason I use Russia point today is to show that your proposal is misdirected on the strategy that foreign governments are using to influence American elections.
      >> That we know about.
      >> Now, as to PAC spending, the rules for PAC spending and U.S., those have been aligned for 30 plus years because corporations since Citizens United in state and local elections.  We applied corporate giving rules including the giving by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, we address that using the same regulatory rules that apply to the operation of the SS if.s by those companies.  Those rules have been aligned.  After Citizens United, about probably nearly almost two years after Citizens UnitedÊ excuse me, 18 months after, this commission voted by a vote of five to one and you voted to apply that this paradigm and this policy to direct contributions by a U.S. subsidiary, trans Canada keystone pipeline GP owned by Canadian trans Canada to state elections in Nebraska.  And this rule, this mouse trap, this implementation of the statutory prohibition was adequate after Citizens United for direct contributions by U.S. subsidiaries.  So this is not just for the first time setting up a structure; thisÊ you refer that I was setting up a structure, some formalistic structure.  I'm not setting it up.  I'm clarifying its application in the context post Citizens United to federal elections that we take the rules that apply to SSS, the rules that apply to U.S. subsidiaries donations to state and local candidates and we simply apply all of those prohibitions and the structure in place to capture circumvention of those prohibitions to the same types of expenditures in connection with federal elections.  That's what this does.  And what this amendment to our prior proposal does it teases out from the precedent before this body over the last 30 years the extent of the prohibitions that have been applied to the involvement of foreign nationals in the decisions of U.S. citizens.
      >> Further comment?  Commissioner Weintraub.
      >> All I have to say to that is my suggestion is that these restrictions are not adequate and that's why I can't support it.
      >> Any further comment commissioner Ravel?
      >> No.  Thank you very much.
      >> I'm not going to support it today but I'm certainly open to supporting it at a later time.  These are very constructive approach and sometimes you have to make compromises.  We'll just have to see as we go along whether or not.  We have some cases coming up before us in the next few months and certainly in the past you've said that's a good spring board to rule making.  Let's see where it takes us.
      So to call for a vote.
      All in favor of the substitutedÊ and by the way do we need to give this an Agenda Document or how does that work for the record?
      >> Mr.ÊChairman, I don't think you need to give it an Agenda Document number but I do think we need to accept it for public consumption because we shared it at this point and it was not a part of the agenda.
      >> Yes, I understand that.
      Okay.  So it will be considered immediately available to the public.
      >> Correct.
      >> Yeah, of course.
      All in favor of the unmarked newly received substituted document?
      >> Aye.
      >> All opposed?
      >> No.
      >> Okay, let the record show that theÊ those in favor, the vice chair by commissioner Petersen and those opposed are commissioner Ravel, Weintraub, and myself.
      Now, I think we'reÊ
      >> Back to my motion.
      >> The next motion before us is the one made by Commissioner Weintraub.
      Are we ready for a vote on that?  Apparently so.
      All in favor of Commissioner Weintraub's motion?
      >> Aye.
      >> Aye.  Aye.
      >> All opposed?
      >> No.
      >> The vote is in the reverse.  I voted in favor, commissioner Ravel and Weintraub voted in favor.  Against, commissioner Petersen and Goodman and Commissioner Hunter.
      I think I got them all.  A couple of them twice.
      That's the end of this agendad item.  The only item left I think I guess is to approve ourÊ I guess there was a point of order that somebody wanted to make and before we close the meeting?
      >> I'm sorry, are we going to address this last agenda item.
      >> It was handed to me for information only.  I didn't realize that.  So we already approved no vote in he is.
      >> And Mr.ÊChairman I'd like to be recognized for a point of personalized privilege?
      >> Yes, please do.
      >> Mr.ÊChairman, departing this week from the Federal Electrician Commission is a friend and colleague and valued member of our staff brandy Zeer.  Brandy came to work for me almost a year ago and she had previously practiced in private practice at Wiley Line.  She had started to work for the Jeb Bush for president campaign and after that ended she came to work here and brought her expertise here to assist me and really the entire commission.  Because much of the work that we see and debate is the handy work of the exquisite handy work of Brandy and she's headed back to the private sector to practice law again at Wiley Ryan with some close friends of many of ours and particularly with former chairman Michael Toner.  OnBaron and Caleb Woods and Andrew wood son who worked here.  She's joined a good group of people and she has been a consummate professional.  She's been a friend and colleague.  She has a very collegial and amiable approach to her work here.  It's going to be missed and I want to wish her God speed back in the private sector and facilitating the first amendment rights.
      >> Thank you very much.
      Any other comment?  Yes, on behalf of all of us, thanks for all the great work and God speed and we'll be seeing you more I'm sure. 
      Anything further?
      >> Mr.ÊChairman, there are no additional matters.
      >> All right.  Thanks.  Meeting is adjourned.