This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on May 09, 2019. This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.



Good morning, the open meeting for the Federal Election Commission for Thursday, May 9, 2019 will now come to order. We have an interesting agenda today and I believe we have some late submitted documents. 

Thank you, I move to suspend the rules in order for the commission to consider the late submission of documents -- 

Thank you. The Vice Chairman has moved that we suspend the rules on the timely submission of documents to consider the late submitted documents. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not I will call the question. All in favor say aye. And the motion passes unanimously. The first item on the agenda is draft advisory opinion 2018-12. Mister Toner, if you would like to come to the table I believe there will be questions. Did you have anything you would like to say to us at the opening? 

Sure, I might as well give a rundown. Agenda documents 18-43-A, B, C, and D are responses to requests by defending digital campaigns. They ask whether they may provide or provision certain cyber security services, software, hardware, to committees and National Park committees on a nonpartisan basis and according to predetermined objective criteria. The dress conclude that the proposal is admissible, while draft B concludes it is not permissible. We have received one comment from the requester on draft C and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Thank you. I believe we probably have questions for Mister Toner. He is there. Thank you for coming back. We know you have been here several times for this and we are always happy to see you for comment. 

If I can get the technology right. The facilities are so beautiful, it is always a pleasure for us to be here. 

And we are always happy to see you. So, we were trying very hard to get closer and closer to giving you an answer. I think everyone agrees that what you are trying to do is a worthwhile endeavor. The question is, how to work it into our legal framework. And in your latest comment, you clarified that the client is planning on seeking corporate contributions in cash and in- kind, which makes it a little harder for some of us. That raises a new concern. One of the concerns that I have goes to disclosure. I know that the client has made the commitment to disclose the donors. Could you tell me a little bit more about how you envision that working? 

Absolutely, Madam chair. First of all, we appreciate the agency consideration of this matter over many months and really appreciate the efforts of everyone involved in this matter. So our clients are very committed to full transparency in terms of the contributions that are raised for this effort. I think what they envisioned, obviously it turned on the outcome of the advisory committee, in terms of the requirements the commission might set out, but I think what they were contemplating his disclosure on our clients website, perhaps paralleling the same kind of disclosure information that registered committees under FICA. We haven't discussed internally the particulars of what that would look like, but the concept would be to provide the public with the same transparency and information in terms of fundraising that other political committees provide as well, and do it on the Internet, through the website, so it would be available for people in real time. 

In real time, so in advance of any elections, in this case the 2020 election. 

That's right, Madam chair. For example if the commission wanted to set out a reporting schedule or indicate that we should follow the same schedule as a committee, quarterly filing or something along those lines, my sense is that my clients are very supportive of that. 

That's helpful. One distinction between your client and a political committee, of course, is the client is planning to accept contributions. Now I am not sure exactly whether you have thought through or your client has thought through what kind of corporations we are talking about. If we are talking about business corporations, we disclose the name of the business corporation and that answers the question of where the money is coming from, but one concern I have is, if for example, if one C4 was to accept contributions from another C4, then we would not get the transparency we get from committees that are not allowed to accept that money where the super PACs are but the campaign committee's aunt. In those groups have been a venue in the past for hiding donors from the public and I would have a lot of concerns if this were to turn into another venue for dark money to be used, even for a commendable purpose, but still to be used in a way that could potentially influence members of Congress, because they would be getting something of value and the public would not be clued in to where it was coming from. So, can you speak to whether you envision that possibility happening, whether your client is planning on soliciting from C4 and other groups that are not as immediately transparent as to where the money is coming from? 

I think as we indicated the last time we were here, our client has not been building out a fundraising plan, in part because the client really wanted to see how this advisory meeting turned out. But the two directives that our client has really emphasized to Mister Elias and his clients -- they are committed to transparency and disclosure and whatever conditions the agency decides to establish in terms of how frequently the disclosure should be or the level of detail. My sense is they are committed to that and also committed, as I indicated in our written materials, to accepting no contributions from foreign nationals. Otherwise they have not been building out their fundraising plan, because they are waiting to see how the agency rules on this advisory opinion as a whole. 

So what I am taking from that is that you don't really know whether they might be either planning now or whether they might if the option were given to them, might end up soliciting C4 groups that might not be as transparent about where the money is coming from. 

There has been no discussion about soliciting particular entities, because we have not turned to fundraising strategies or development at this stage. Instead we are waiting to see if the agency approves the proposal as a whole, but they are very committed to meeting the disclosure obligations that the commission might establish in this advisory hearing. Very committed to that. 

I don't want to hog the microphone. Do any of my colleagues have anything they wish to add? 

Nice to see you here again. 

Thank you, Commissioner, good to see you. 

I have the same issue as the chair. On this it seems to me , somewhat of a kink in there, probably not clear in the future what it might look like, but to have it say, indicating that they may at some future point consider monetary donations from sources other than individuals and foundations. I think at one point they said, if necessary. That was in a previous draft. But my concern, again, is this is a little bit last minute to consider that new factor. Maybe we can take enough time not to say no, but to at least find out how to put some other bounds. 

Absolutely. I think a couple things differentiating between sort of in-kind provision of goods and services and direct contributions. As you know in our original advisory panel, we went into some detail about the framework of working with a wide variety of entities for the provision of goods and services. What would typically be seen as an in-kind contribution if the activity were a contribution in the first place. That is definitely the heart of what DDC would like to do. As we indicated the last time we were here, in our written comments, in terms of direct contributions, there just haven't been plans thus far to seek contributions from corporate entities or entities beyond individuals and foundations. But DDC would like to have the potential ability to consider that in the future if it did become necessary. So that is sort of where they are on that side of things. 

Well, it is just , it seems to me with a little bit of work we could make it work. As you can tell, we have been working on this and we want to make sure we can get this thing through, because of really the need to have it. We know all of you. We know it is a chance to do this with maybe a little stretch here and a little stretch there. But on this one right now, I wonder if maybe we couldn't put a fine point on this. Maybe come back the next meeting and see if we will have some thought given to it. 

Absolutely. Like I said earlier, we appreciate everyone's efforts on this matter and our client is committed to providing as much time as the agency might need for these issues. 

Mister Vice Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, for the information you provided to us and the efforts that have been taken to try to reach a consensus on this. I guess I am a little concerned about -- this is now the third meeting at which we have considered this matter and there seems to be a pattern that is developing, where we get here, talk, appear to be close, but not quite there. We say we need a little more time, then we get to the next meeting, another issue arises. That the can is getting kicked down the road quite a number of times now and I am wondering, it seems --you said you were on draft C and the modification we see in draft D is modest, so it is not that we are looking at an extensive change that I think requires an inordinate amount of thinking and time to take into account. Is there a specific thought that you had that would address your concerns, because if you are on draft C, it seems like the difference between draft C and draft D are relatively minor and don't change the analysis in any meaningful way. So I am wondering if there is something we might be able to discuss here and now, but might actually be able to resolve this for the commission. Allow the requester to have the security of an advisory opinion. Because it seems like what might be necessary would not require a tremendous amount of a heavy lift or an extensive amount of language change. So I want to ask my colleague what he might envision and whether or not we might be able to get to a yes, rather than have to kick the can down, throw it another time and potentially risk running into the same problem at that meeting, as well. 

We all know --this is something I just read a few hours ago. I think it is a new consideration. It is not kicking the can down the road very far. You can call it what you want, but it is potentially, not today, maybe tomorrow, it is open-ended so I am interested in trying to tie down -- realistically. I wouldn't worry about the votes sliding. We know pretty much where they are. Pretty close on draft C, the we won't know until we vote, of course. I would like to give us until the next meeting. You give it some thought, we give it some thought, see if we can tie it down now rather than some later date. 

Did you have further comment Mister Vice Chairman? 

I am just saying, I am concerned about the time we have taken on this so far and how long it has taken us. This is the third meeting at which we have considered this. We have four drafts. The comment came in the door on Monday. It wasn't an extensive comment. The edit made to the draft was not an extensive edit. I am just concerned that , that this process is starting to develop a certain pattern and I am wondering if we are going to be able to successfully bring this to a conclusion or if there are concerns that we don't think you are going to be able to find some comfort on. I don't know. I am wondering how much more time you anticipate needing. 

Well I think Commissioner Walther has asked that we take until the next meeting. I appreciate your concern on the timeliness of this. Timeliness is a concern for me, as well. I suppose commissioners can differ on whether receiving no information on Monday is adequate time to fully consider all the implications by Thursday, but one issue that has been really important for Commissioner Walther and for me has been the disclosure aspect. I recognize that has not been as big a factor for all the commission. But for some of us, the representation that the requester was willing to disclose the donors is a very key fact and is, in fact, is central to getting four votes. So whether it is spelled out, whether there are stipulations in the draft or not, it will take all of us to be on the same page in order to get an answer. And two of us think disclosure is essential. So, you know, unless we are comfortable with the disclosure, there probably won't be those four votes. And adding in corporate, the possibility of corporate solicitations, I think it is less of a concern on the in- kind side of getting corporate employees, you know, to donate their time. In fact, you know, I think the tech community owns a little bit of the problem that has been created here, so if the tech community wants to step up and donate services to help fix the problem, I think that is not a bad result. But when we start talking about soliciting cash, and soliciting cash from we don't know whom, but potentially dark money sources, that raises red flags for some of us. If your client were willing to make representation that they weren't going to be soliciting that kind of money, I think that would make it easier. I don't want to speak for Commissioner Walther, but it would alleviate concerns for me. So, I think that is kind of where we are. 

I would like to know if Mr. Toner has a comment about that. 

Two things, when is the next commission meeting? Is it two or three weeks? Six weeks? 

No, I was just kidding. 

It looks like it is in two weeks, the 23rd. 

23rd of May, okay. I didn't have that in front of me. So like I said earlier, our clients, the direction they have given to us is to be fully committed to disclosure and whatever parameters the agency establishes in that area. That is really where our client is. They have been at that place throughout the process and they agree that having transparency in that area is really vital. I think that's where they are and whatever conditions FEC might put into the disclosure area, I think they are committed to meeting. 

Well, I think it is not going to work quite that way, because I don't think there will be four votes to put conditions on disclosure in the draft. In fact, we have already had a lot of back-and-forth on that aspect of the advisory opinion behind closed doors and, you know, I thought that the draft should be more closely tied to a specific requirement on disclosure. That was not going to get four votes. So I don't think it will be a question of the commission laying out conditions, because we won't have four votes to layout conditions. It is going to work the other way around, where what representations is the requester able to make that would secure four votes? If you catch my drift here. 

Right. Right. But you can appreciate, Madam Chair, we are here to seek the direction of the agency. Wherever you come out on it, we are going to respect. That's the reality and our clients emphasized disclosure on the Internet in regular intervals. For example, the same type of disclosure schedule that a political committee operates with, they are very comfortable with. That is their direction to us. >> And it may well be that they might hear about this discussion and say, if that is their concern, then you know, we are happy to represent them. We are not going to solicit money from dark money groups. I assume it wouldn't be framed in exactly that way. And that might be very helpful. Again, I don't want to speak for Commissioner Walther. It would be helpful to me. And I would rely on those representations in issuing the advisory opinion. I want to ask a question, to go back to something we were talking about last time. And forgive me , I don't think I asked this exact question last time, but we talked about the possibility of the party committees. Paying for these kinds of services and making them available to their candidates. Have you given any thought to using, say, the building funds? Sort of defining building as including the hardware, software, cyber security apparatus , have you thought about going down that road, maybe? 

There was a dialogue on that the last time we were here. Mister Elias, there was an exchange we shared that there were some suspicions on the Democratic side in terms of the ability of the DNC and the other national party committees to play this role. Which obviously I am not equipped to speak to, but I remember there was a dialogue there. I remember someone was talking about this idea that at least in the Democratic campaign community, it was hard for them to see the DNC or the national Democratic committee as being able to play that role. Obviously I defer to my Democratic colleagues on that and I am not aware of any specific consideration of using a building fund type concept, no. 

But you haven't talked to the party committees about that? 

I have not, no. 

You, meaning the client. 

Not to my knowledge. >> So it seems as though there are two separate issues. One, what the chair and the commissioner called disclosure. You have stated you will provide full disclosure. It is in your representations. It seems like everyone was okay with that representation. It sounded like we had four votes for draft C, so it seems like disclosure is not really the issue. The issue is, I think, are you going to take money from so- called dark money groups. I think that is related in your mind to disclosure. So you have the ability to do so, of course, as a 501(c), but you are hearing concern for my colleagues that they don't want you to do that. You are saying, I don't know yet, because we haven't gotten that far. I'm trying to figure out what kind of condition you are asking him to put in his representations. I don't know if I were him that I would go back to my client and say they don't like certain types of corporations. That is kind of what I am hearing. Corporations don't disclose their donors, so I'm not really sure what he's supposed to do. 

That's the point, corporations don't disclose their donors. Now, business corporations don't have donors, they have customers. People understand where the money is coming from when you are dealing with a business corporation. With C4 it is a different story. 

So you are okay if they take money from what you call a business corporation? 

I would probably be okay with what they are proposing , even with the addition of taking money from corporations, if we were talking about business corporations and they would be disclosed. That would alleviate my concerns that this would become another venue for, as I said, undisclosed donors to be providing things of value to members of Congress and the public being left in the dark about it. 

And I do think, Madam Chair, that framework could work well for us. As I said earlier, I don't think there is any active consideration of funds from however we want to define dark money organizations. For example, if there were votes to approve these drafts, we have so many drafts. But one of these drafts on the disclosure side of things and there would be the option of soliciting corporations from for-profit business corporations, but they currently don't have any plans to solicit contributions from or accept contributions from, however you want to define it. I think that could work very well. 

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't be surprised at that, because, you know, there is a lot of money in the business community. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what the client had in the back of their mind to go to the business community for donations for something like this. 

And we would be supportive of and adoption of an opinion along those lines if there was a consensus in that area, with those conditions. We would be. 

So as long as they are in the conditions we have established the conditions are good enough, Mr. Toner is saying he might be able to go back and add that in there. So, for-profit business corporations are okay. I don't know how you would define people who are not okay. Did we say foundations are okay, I can't remember? 

Yes. 

Foundations are okay? 

By your question, I will just kind of jump ahead on that if you are suggesting that the foundation can also be --you are right. You are right. 

I don't think they disclose their donors. 

I think you are right and that is also a concern, but foundations have the protection that they operate under (c)(3) in the tax code. 

So you want to say (c)(3) and for-profit corporations if they agree to that are okay with you? 

Where would that leave LLCs? I am trying to think of the entities that have been problematic in other contexts. I think LLCs could also be -- you know, I think this is resolvable. 

I think it is helpful, you know, to have the clients here, to have the requesters here, so I think your suggestion of trying to talk it through now is a good one, because I don't want us to be sitting here next week, trying to figure out what we want to ask Mr. Toner four. So for-profit business corporations are okay, (c)(3) is okay. 

Not (c)(4), LLCs --again, I am just speaking for myself now. Commissioner Walther has also asked for more time to think about this and I don't want to jump in front of him. 

I think those are all items to work through. I don't think right now is the time, but we want to help you get this thing off the road. I can remember when it first got on the commission. Mr. Toner, and we went in, I was going to make some suggestions. I had strong views about it. We went through and he kept nodding, what a great idea I have, what a great idea I have. And I gave half of them were more. That was great negotiating. That was some time ago. 

You're too kind, Commissioner. Some time ago, that's right. The other element there is been some discussion about his potentially seeking government grants, which is different than the flow of money we are talking about now. For example, if there were government grants to help assist DDC in this effort, they might think about applying for those grants. 

Yeah, I don't see that is problematic, since I would be happy if the government funded the whole thing. 

You know, through State Department or Homeland security, there might be some grantmaking authority where they might seek funds from the government. 

So, in this framework, the Chamber of Commerce, which I think is a (c)(6) wouldn't be able to participate, is that right? 

Right. But a member of the Chamber of Commerce could. 

As long as they were a for- profit business corporation. 

Is and that who joins the Chamber of Commerce? 

I think that's mostly, but I'm not sure if they have any not-for-profit organizations or not. 

I honestly don't know. 

I'm not sure. 

Former Commissioner toner has been around the block on these issues of transparency and money flowing through organizations. I suspect he understands my concerns. 

It is like Groundhog Day, where is Bill Murray? If we are talking about transparency and flows of money for multiple entities. 

[ Laughter ] do we have any other questions, comments? 

So Commissioner Walther, would you like me to add that language in now or -- 

No, next meeting -- 

So, what I propose -- 

If you have new ideas based upon how you have heard we considered things and grants or whatever might , as you are thinking about it, and it sounds like your clients are still working on how they want to go, at least for the time being, so if we can embellish on that, that would be great, too. I am not inclined to hold you guys up, I just want to refine this based on this new information. 

Another possible way of getting at it would be C corpse. It has been a long time since I cracked open a corporate law book , but that might be another path. 

In lieu of business corporations? 

Yeah, I think it might capture -- 

I don't know what's wrong with describing it in that way. 

I think there could be some elements that are for-profit business corporations. 

And we don't like LLCs now? Oh yeah, that was in the know category. 

LLCs have been a venue for dark money in other circumstances that have come before the commission. I know you are not as concerned about dark money as I am, Commissioner, but it is a concern for some of us. Mister vice Commissioner. 

Thank you. While we still have Mr. Toner here, I want to confirm this is the sticking point. Are there any other issues we need to hash out now while we have them here that might give useful guidance going forward, so we don't unearth another issue that will be a tripping point further along? Is there anything else or is it really the financing issue that if we can hammer this out we anticipate this is kind of the final verdict? 

For me it is all about disclosure. >> Madam Chair. 

Yes. 

What I would like to do is circulate a draft , maybe this afternoon, adding the language we just discussed, basically to the same place where we added the language requested in the comments earlier this week and see if that works for people. 

So, what the amendment talked about, what the comment said , so are you suggesting this would be a requirement that the commission would say -- 

No, because that isn't the language -- 

It isn't, but we don't have that representation yet from the requester, so we can't put words in their mouth. 

That's true. Once we hear back --I am trying to figure out the timing, what comes first. But he can't react to what is in there until he knows what's in there, so why don't we put it in first and the requester can say yay or nay? Instead of waiting for him to come back, he doesn't know what we want to put in there. He would be guessing like the rest of us. So we will try to put something in there this afternoon, see if it is okay with our colleagues, and then the requester can comment, how's that? 

Happy to consider a draft. 

Does that sound like a plan? 

Absolutely and we would provide comments like we did in the last round of drafts, absolutely. 

Who knows, maybe we'll come up with a magic formulation and they will be happy and say that works for us and we could even do it before the next meeting. 

I am going to add the stuff we talked about, I don't know how magic it is, unless anyone has any new ideas. Maybe we could do it on tally, that be great. 

The best words in the English language, tally vote. That sounds good right now. 

It frequently sounds good to me, but it is hard to achieve around here. Particularly because we have lost the ability with only four of us to have someone object for the record and move it along. We all have to be on board. Any further comments, questions? Okay, well then, thank you. It was very useful having you come in again. We appreciate it. 

Thank you and we appreciate the consideration here on the issues we are working through. Thank you. 

We are trying to get there. 

Thank you. 

Thank you. 

The next item on the agenda, I will speak slowly so people can move back and forth, is draft advisory opinion 2019-05, from System73. I see you sitting back there, would you like to join us up here? I have a feeling you might have comments, based on the comments you sent into us. 

Thank you and good morning commissioners. Before you is agenda document --a draft advisory opinion required --responding to a request from System73. The requester asks whether it may pay a political committee a license fee for the exclusive rights to live-stream the political committee event. The draft concludes the proposal would result in prohibited corporate contributions, because, one the proposal does not meet requirements for a media exemption, because System73 would not act within the scope of a legitimate media function and paying a committee for this access and two, the proposal is not otherwise permissible because it would result in fundraising for the committee. We did not receive any comments on the request. We received one comment on the draft from the requester. Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. Well, Mr. Engle I know you have comments, so we might as well start with you. 

Thank you. I appreciate that and it is good to be here. My inaugural visit. 

To the new building, welcome. 

Thank you. Well, the General Counsel's office is right that those are the two issues, boiled down into two sentences that will turn whether this advisory opinion is approved or not. The first one is on page 11. And it is on lines 19 through 21. And it says, System73 would not be acting within the scope of a legitimate media function and paying the committee for this access. And there is no citation to that sentence, or for that sentence. In the second point that the counsel raised, was at the bottom of page 11, line 23, up to the next page, System73 would not only stream the committee's events, but would also pay the committee a license fee, which would be a mechanism for raising funds for the candidates. One citation to support that. That is at page 7. So, going in reverse order, I would like to look at page 7 and see what they were talking about there. On page 7, they were talking about a mechanism for raising funds for the candidate. They said, on page 7 at the bottom of that top paragraph, providing a mechanism for raising funds for a candidate is not a typical press function. So adding a contribution page or providing a permanent hyperlink to an appropriate website, where viewers can make contributions, could not be covered by the press exemption. Meaning you cannot say you are part of the press, when you are facilitating the making of other people's contributions by providing hyperlinks or some sort of mechanism for them to donate money. So then I want to jump to the advisory opinion request that I submitted on page 4. It says System73 does not presently provide any fundraising functionality with its live- streaming technologies. It's political committee customers will need to continue to use their own existing systems to generate contributions. -- Maybe a nice citation for that sentence, but it is not applicable here. We kind of thought about this before we submitted it. Now, I will admit that I did not spend much time in the advisory opinion request addressing the first point, about whether a license fee paid in the media industry is typical. In the media industry. I did not do that, because it is so obvious that that is what happens every day in the media industry, that it barely was worth commenting on. As I was waiting for my chance to come up here, I pulled up another eight articles on my phone about the enormity of media and licensing fees and that is how Netflix works. Hulu, the NFL, half the shows on CBS. That the broadcasters pay third parties a license fee for their content and then, while broadcasting their content, generate advertising revenue. It happens every minute of every day on nearly every channel that you can watch. And it happens in music. It happens on Broadway. It is the way the industry works. So, I do apologize for not being more diligent in my advisory opinion request about saying that license fees are the way the world works, because I thought that was obvious. But I want to be on the record saying, license fees are the way the world works. So, those are just two small comments, but I think they go to the heart of the matter. Which is, are you in the media business? Can you pay a license fee, yes. Are we planning on facilitating the making of contributions, no. 

So, if I go --I was going to name a store name, but I won't, so as not to put any converse -- any commercial endorsements on record. But if I go to a store and buy a T-shirt, it is a normal transaction. I get a T-shirt and pay money for it. But if I buy a T-shirt from a campaign committee, that's a campaign contribution, even though I am still getting a T- shirt. And maybe, this has happened to me, I'm just buying it because I liked the pattern on the T- shirt. When I was young and naive, I didn't even realize I was making a political contribution when I bought the T-shirt. So, my point being, political committees, when they receive income, when they sell things, they are kind of on a different footing from other folks that provide things of value and get paid for them, because often it does result in a political contribution, even though in other settings it would not. So, why isn't the license fee for broadcast to a campaign event a campaign contribution in the same way that buying a T- shirt at the campaign event would be a campaign contribution? 

I think there are a couple answers to that. The first one is, the individual who buys the T-shirt at a campaign event knows exactly what is going on. They are buying a T-shirt, they are making a contribution . 

I'm telling you, I didn't the first time. That was when I was much younger. 

We will put something in the record. 

That I was once young and very naive, okay. 

The campaign events that I've been to, also recently, make you fill out a donor card when you buy a T-shirt. 

And good for them. 

Here you have a like kind exchange, quid pro quo, a corporate contribution in exchange for an equal asset coming back to that corporation, which would be the exclusive rights to be the broadband broadcaster of the event. That truly is the like kind exchange. 

Still not entirely getting why it's not like a T-shirt. 

Well, a T-shirt is a political contribution. Buying a ticket at an event, that's a political contribution. You are an individual and you are wanting to support that candidate. System73 doesn't care. 

So it is by intent? 

Doesn't care who the candidate is. They don't care. They want to do it for all the candidates. This is why it was so exciting for them to have 22 or 23 presidential channels. And everybody can sign up and give a System73 channel for their presidential campaign. 

Okay, Commissioner Hunter. 

I'm curious, I didn't think about this until he started talking about the T-shirts. I know what the rules are, if you buy a T-shirt it is a contribution. But I was at the RNC when we first started talking about this in the RNC decided not to sell T-shirts, because they didn't want to deal with all that. Does anyone remember if there is an opinion from here on point saying that the purchase of a T-shirt is completely a contribution? Because I have a vague recollection that it might just be the prophet. Why is it the full price of the T-shirt -- might just be the profit. Why is it the full price of the T-shirt and not the profit? 

That's the way it works. I could understand an argument that that's the way it should be day 

I know that's not the way it works, but that's in part just because that's what people decided to do. 

I do think there is authority for that, I will look for it while you discuss. 

Okay, thank you. I want to know if they got into that fine point at the outset of this conversation, which was a while ago. I guess it was after -- 

They've been selling T- shirts for a long time -- 

It wasn't an issue until after -- 

I don't remember right now. >> I can guarantee you, the T- shirt that I bought when I was young and naive was --because I wasn't that young when it passed. 

It is 11 CFR 100.53. It says the entire amount paid to attend a fundraiser or another political event in the entire amount for the purchase price of a fund-raising item sold by a political committee is a contribution. And that is regulation. 

Who wrote that rig? 

That's an old one, I think. 

That's fine for me, because it talks about fundraising items and that is not what we are dealing with here. >> Commissioner Petersen. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I congratulate you on coming up in conjunction with your client with a very innovative approach and one that has caused me to do a lot of deep thinking on this issue. I can't say that because of the unusual nature of the request , as you pointed out, this is an innovative proposal that you put together. But the rule of thumb that I always understood, and correct me if my understanding and to the extent that I am oversimplifying it, is that you make a payment to a political committee . That payment is going to be considered a contribution with certain exemptions. So the example of the hats, books, the T-shirts, the payment to get into an event. Maybe that event has entertainment, but still. Even though there might be fair market value, the amount you are paying to that political committee is considered a contribution. There are exceptions to that general rule of thumb. Regarding mailing lists, regarding sale of committee assets, when the committee is disbanding and getting rid of computers and old office equipment and so forth. Is that an oversimplification of the rule of thumb? And walk me through why there is more room for a political committee to receive a payment of this sort, without that being considered a contribution ? 

First of all, it starts with the reason we are all here, which is to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. That is the whole reason that we have the artifice that we have. And if you ask yourself what kind of corruption am I promoting by prohibiting System73, you are not going to get a good answer. There is no corrupting element to a corporation that wants to be in the political media business, if it does it on an evenhanded basis and consistent as a legitimate media function. So, the lack of any corrupting influence here, is where I start. In looking at transactions between entities and political committees. The second thing is, I think it is time for us to recognize that the content of political speech and candidates time and appearances have value. They don't have to give it away anymore. The traditional media has made a fortune off of requiring candidates to give them their time. To give them access to their speeches. And sometimes even change the time and location of speeches, in order for them to get their camera crews there. Well, that imbalance is just that, and imbalance. That a terrific speech by a candidate has value. We know that, because people watch it. And people cover it as news. And in order to be the exclusive taker of that value, for broadband purposes, you should be required to give them something in exchange for that. When you look , here is an example. Let's say I represent a man who has run for the Senate and been elected two or three times. And the history channel comes to our office and says we would like footage of his campaign appearances, because we are putting together a documentary thing and we want to see him in the 70s and 80s and 90s. You have footage you can give us. And as a campaign's lawyer, I say yeah, we do have footage. Here it is. Now give me a license agreement , tell me how much you're going to pay me for this footage, and what you are going to do with it. Because I am not going to give it over for free and I'm not going to give it over for strings attached. No I do not think anybody in this room would say that the history channel can't have a transaction with a campaign committee, if it is putting together a documentary and looking for campaign footage. I also don't think anyone in this room would think the history channel could get away with that for free. It is not the way it works. That is not the way the creation of third-party content on television works. It works through license agreements for the use of creative content. Which is then recouped by the sale of advertising. This is no different than the NFL. This is no different than something on Netflix. It is a broadcaster looking around for opportunities to purchase things and get an exclusive right to then rebroadcast them for profit. 

Can I ask you a question about this business model? I'm not sure I understand how this is going to work. You're talking about an exclusive license fee. Are you suggesting that candidates would then ban every other media entity from covering their rallies or events, because they have this exclusive arrangement with Trent -- exclusive arrangement with System73? 

No, exclusive broadband provider. If CNN and NBC and others want to set up their cameras and put it on their channels, that is great. But we are talking about being the exclusive broadband licensee for your presidential channel on System73. And the other thing that System73 provides that the other cameras aren't going to provide is interactivity. Because what we have done is created the best of the Internet and the best of cable, to give uninterrupted, high- quality broadband broadcasting. Just like you are watching , you know, a television show. With the functionality of the Internet, where you can be watching and then hit prompts on your screen to say I like that sentence, I didn't like that sentence. I am hot, I am cold. So it allows the audience to interact. What does it also do? It gives the candidates more exposure to their supporters and maybe even to the undecided. The number one thing I have heard from the candidates that I have spoken to is we don't get enough coverage. Media is to favorite. We get clipped and edited. If I could only just get through, I am sure we could get more support. Well, this is how you get through. You get through as a candidate, by using what the rest of the industry and the rest of the world is doing, which is licensing your content through an exclusive broadband channel. 

So CBS covers it and they have it on CBS.com -- 

If CBS has it on CBS.com, that's fine. If CBS was there and had their camera, God bless them. 

So how is it exclusive then? 

We are talking about a broadband channel, for Walther for president. That's CBS, hey -- 

It could happen. 

That's not on the Walther for president channel, that's on CBS. That is where all the noises. The other thing is, on CBS, their live-stream and their broadband and certainly their network, is not unlimited. Things roll off. You know, like with Netflix, for example. You have to hurry up and finish watching a show, because you heard at the end of the week they will be taking such and such off of Netflix. Why is that? Is it because Netflix is only so big? No, they are pretty big. It is because the license expired. 

But what you are describing, when you talk about how the candidates say, oh, if only I could get access to broadband so my full message could come through, now you are really convincing me that the candidates are really getting something of value, not that the candidates should be paid for this. It seems more appropriate that they would be paying for this. That they want this exposure. It is not as if the candidates are saying, oh, we have too many cameras following us around. They want all the cameras, all the time, all the publicity they can possibly get. It just seems counterfactual to suggest that they need to be paid in order to have their content made more available. 

It is really not it. I can't write a contract with a candidate to say, you give me exclusive rights to your speeches and I give you nothing. A contract has to have two equal exchanges to it. And if you sign up, with us, you can buy from us a lot of the interactivity functions that I talked about, so that you can know who is watching, whether they were hot or not, what they didn't like, the functionalities that are going to be available here on the Walther for president presidential channel are going to be great. You are going to be getting a lot of data back. 

Which is why Walther for president should pay for it. 

Well, they are paying for it. They are paying for the functionality charges. In the advisory opinion, there is a second set of services that we can provide. And they have to pay for those. >> But even being on the channel from the get go sounds like something that would be extremely valuable to candidates. 

Well, we hope so. But that doesn't mean they have to give it away, just because it is extremely valuable. I mean, look, being on a CNN town hall, for example , one of the biggest complaints that some of the younger candidates, lesser candidates say, that we are not getting on. 

Careful there, some of those younger candidates are pretty hot. 

And the any quality that is attributed to some people by who CNN allows access to or not, is exactly what we are trying to prevent. Everybody gets a shot. Everybody gets a shot at having their own channel and having a chance at all of the interactive functions that having your own channel has. And we do it, just like everybody else in the industry is doing it, through license agreements. 

Commissioner Hunter. 

I think maybe this helps. So, a candidate who you called --I can't remember -- 

Younger. 

Lesser known or whatever. There are 23 candidates now on the Democrat side. So one of the lesser-known candidates, they might get a clip on CNN but they are not getting their entire speech run. You said, why can't CBS video them? They can, but they don't, because nobody wants to watch the entire speech of someone who is a not so popular candidate. So you're not preventing CBS from showing up and videoing the entire speech in Iowa, but again, they aren't showing up. It is not bringing enough revenue for them to send the camera, set up and while this stuff. So the service they are providing films that guys entire speech and then pays him for the use of being able to stream it, and then he can buyback services to allow his viewers, his supporters or undecided to watch him give the full speech, because if they don't have that service either there is a tiny snippet or nobody shows up at all. 

Well, you could put it on YouTube. You could put the entire speech on YouTube. 

It would be like somebody on their phone, videoing the speech on YouTube. They don't have the ability to provide a good video service that could be straightened out. It is going to be sort of man on the street sort of video. I mean campaigns can't do what they are going to do, or they would do it themselves, right? Again, the level of production he is offering. So, going back to what we were talking about earlier, I think I am kind of glad that I brought up the regulation that you said thank you, because you are right Craig, or Mr. Engle days 

Craig is fine. 

We are all friends here. 

Okay. The entire amount paid to attend a fundraiser or a political event in the entire amount paid as the purchase price for a fund-raising item sold by a political committee as a contribution. So back to what you were saying earlier, if you are trying to sell a fund-raising item, you have to pay for it and that is in line with what you just talked about with the MelothŽ opinion. They were trying to raise money. In this case, they are trying to get their message out and put their entire speech or whatever out in the public domain and it is more akin to the sale of a mailing list, which we talked about yesterday. It is almost a service, an asset they have themselves. So they are having, what you said, a bargain for exchange with the company and they are both winning. Just because they are both winning doesn't mean it's not okay. The candidate wants to get his message and his voice out there, but as Craig said it is impossible for someone to say I will come video you and make it available, you know, for free. It doesn't work that way. So this is a creative way for both sides to win, but they are providing the company with something, which is their speech and themselves, in the same way they would in a mailing list. 

It still seems like a candidate is getting something of great value and would pay for this. And perhaps should pay for it. But I am not seeing why they get paid for it and it is not like selling the T-shirts, and yeah they do it to make money, but they mostly do it because they want a lot of people to be wearing their T-shirts and walking around advertising that they support that candidate. 

I think that the reason the candidates should be paid for this is because they are giving up something. They are giving up something to us. The right to be the exclusive broadband broadcaster of all of their campaign events. 

But you said, they don't have that anywhere else anyway, so are they really giving something up? Who else is asking for that? 

I'm sorry, I don't understand. 

If there were a bunch of folks with services like yours, that were competing to be the exclusive venues for the candidates, speeches and whatever, then -- I mean, honestly, I don't know why a candidate would want to exclude -- they want their name and photo in as many places as possible. It still seems to me that what you are providing is of such value to the candidates, that they do not need to be paid. They are getting more than they are giving. 

I couldn't disagree with that more. That they are getting something that they should be grateful for and should be paid for, getting more than it is worth. That's not a statement that I can agree with, because the marketplace for political content is changing. And I think that we have to recognize that a candidate's appearance, his time, his speeches, have value. And if a candidate committee wants to give a promoted place to someone for access to that value, then there has to be some kind of quid pro quo exchange. I don't understand why campaigns have to be the losers here. 

Are not the losers, they are getting the publicity, which is the thing they most want. 

They are getting the publicity because they signed an agreement with us for us to give them the visibility and interactive functionality. 

Are we then going to have candidates selling their time to give speeches to corporate audiences? And I am sure there are plenty of corporate audiences who would be happy to pay for that. 

I think that is a completely separate thing. A speaking fee for candidates to a corporate audience, I think that is completely different. It's not at all what I am talking about. I am talking about a media company, not a corporate audience. I am talking about a campaign, not a candidate. I'm talking about a political event, not a speaking fee. Nothing at all to do with this. 

I understand you say that these things are entirely different. I'm not sure that they are. 

A candidate giving a private speech to a corporation for money, versus this, what I am doing , I think there are differences. I think there are a lot of differences. I think some private corporate audience is not a media company. I think going to a campaign rally is not asking a candidate to give a speech. Paying a candidate to give a speech is not the same thing as having an offset to an operating expenditure, which is essentially what this is. It's essentially what this is. It is not a contribution, it's an offset to an expenditure where campaign will have to put on an event and pay $58,000 and a buildout for an arena and they recoup $4000 of it through a license fee through an exclusive provider. Remember, campaigns don't run for free. They are creating these operating expenses. 

No, it's what we are here for. 

Is campaigns have operating expenditures. That is what this really is. It is an offset to an operating expenditure. To the extent that it is a net plus contribution received, that is just not possible. Not possible. That this is an excellent way for expenses to be afraid. 

It just sounds like a contribution to me, the way you're describing it. Exactly what you are saying is what is persuading me. Wait, wait, wait, let me finish my sentence please. The candidate , if the candidate is getting subsidies for their operating expenses, that sounds like a contribution. 

A contribution is a thing of value for the purpose of influencing an election and this company is not in the business of influencing any election. It has no intent to influence an election. Its purpose is not to influence an election. That is what a contribution is. A thing of value given for the purpose of influencing an election. There are limits put on it for the purposes of preventing corruption and some prohibitions for the purpose of preventing corruption. We are not even in the thing of value for the purposes of influencing an election, let alone bumping up against a prohibition. We are, like many of the examples I cited, a business that wants to have political clients. Over the last 25 or 30 years, the commission has routinely checked yes if you are a business doing it in an evenhanded sort of way and you are motivated by profit and not the outcome of an election. You are fine. Just because we are the first ones to come up with this does not make it wrong. 

Mister vice chair. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on a point Commissioner Hunter was going down and also pick up on a question I asked you earlier about the rule of thumb. The way I understand it, is that that rule of thumb as I presented it was overly broad, not particularly precise and in regard to what you had said, a payment to a political committee will be considered a contribution if that payment is for a fundraising purpose. A fund-raising item. Again, hats, shirts, books, what have you. In this particular case, this is not a payment for a fund- raising item. I could see the argument being raised that on the one hand, I think in your comment you said this is not -- I think you expressed some exasperation with the notion that committees would try to goose the number of events they have in order to boost potential license fees they could receive and therefore fatten their bank accounts. That that would fly in the face of political reality and fly in the face of how much these license fees would actually pad the coffers of the political committee, but it does seem like there does need to be some line drawn between when is a payment to a political committee, when is that deemed a fund-raising , a fund-raising payment, and where should the line be, in terms of when we consider a payment to a political committee to not be? I know you talked about like kind of exchange and so forth. Maybe help me with that concept of how that line should be drawn between fundraising and non-fundraising in terms of payments made to political committees. 

I think you can look at it as a fund-raising receipt. Like at the top of your FEC page, contribution. Versus another receipt or an offset to an operating expense. The contribution is pretty easy, because we deal with those all the time. It is people who want to support someone and they give them money, so they can then go on and campaign. That is the motivation for the purpose of influencing election. I want you to win, so here is $1000 or I am going to buy five T-shirts. That's a contribution. Offsets to operating expenditures or other receipts are further down the page, on the details only page and they are designed to show that there are places where political committees can receive income, that don't count as contributions. And in your reporting books, you talk about what our other receipts? What are offsets to operating expenditures? Pretty much they are all commercial oriented transactions, the tail end of them showing up on your report. They are not refunds. But they are money that you have been given or netted, against an expense that you have incurred. A perfect example is the airline seat. That if you are a campaign with a plane, and the media wants to climb on board, you can charge them the first class seat, or whatever the number might be. Now, that is a check that is being written by CBS, right to Beto for president. For the purpose of having their reporter on that plane , so he can watch Beto and film him and maybe get an interview and go to the next event. You would think the campaign would want that for free, that kind of exposure. Sure. Come on my plane. I need all the reporters that I can get on my plane. But no, the commission says, you can charge for access. First-class airfare. So you can be close to the candidate and film them and get a chance at an interview and get in the front row of the next event. That is the difference between a contribution and another receipt or an offset to an operating expenditure. 

I did not have my microphone on. Any other comments, questions, Commissioner Walter? 

I am still working through the thought process, but I always come back to the issue of the thing of value. The thing of value that we are bound by. Is it a gift, is it not a gift, what is the value and how do you determine what the value is? In this process, I was trying to think about how you figure out what a thing of value is or isn't and what factors are taken into consideration. I am interested to hear what you have to say. If it is a regular business transaction, like you say, things of value are equal, then you can figure out whether it is a campaign contribution or it isn't. That is what I think is the hard thing to do in all of this, to figure out how to measure the so-called thing of value. 

Commissioner, that is something I struggled with as well, when we were working on this several months ago, because my fear is this. That I was going to be here, talking about, yes Mr. Engle, how can you make sure that license fee isn't too high. We understand you are going to give a license fee and we understand you are going to make advertising revenue from the broadcast of it and we understand that you might get some money for the functionality of it and we understand all of that is going to happen. But how can you make sure that you aren't overpaying? That is what I was most concerned about. 

That is the issue -- 

And the answer to that is this. We are going to have to have some of the best licensing algorithms available and licensing attorneys available, to start this off. Because we can't overpay. And I will make a prediction that the license fees that will be paid under our proposal initially are kind of low. Because the market has not yet matured or become well-known as to what the commercial revenue can be on a broadband channel for a candidate during a round of speeches. But we will get there. But in talking with my clients, you are going to have to turn the dial to low, because this is permitted because it is a like kind exchange. Just make sure you error on the downside. Unfortunately, because of the license industry being as pervasive as it is, we will be able to have access to the talent that will help us, both computer talent and people talent. >> The other thing that I thought I was going to be talking about, was separating the advertising revenue from the license fee to the candidates. But that appears not to be a problem, because of the way we have structured this to not to be like an affinity card relationship or anything else where you get a percentage of the revenue if you sign up for my program. So that is one of the questions that I think we saw going in here. The question that I didn't think I was going to have to face is the notion of license fees being not a typical media function. We all watched a licensed program last night before we went to bed, I'm sure, whatever that might be. And secondly, your precedent on fundraising, cited right here, Melothe, is do not let third parties take advantage of a media platform for raising funds to a candidate. That is your precedent. That is exactly what I said I was not going to do. I said I was not going to do what you prohibited in Melothe and I said I was going to do what is common in the industry. You have many advisory opinions that say if you stay within industry norms and practices, you are going to be fine. Don't weave out of the ordinary course of business. I am in the ordinary course of business and I am not fundraising. I am honestly not sure what more I can do, to make this as clear as I can that this is a commercial exchange by a media company, which happens many times every day, especially in politics. 

Commissioner Walther. 

One of the things that comes to mind is trying to figure this out. I am truly a novice and how money is approached in these sort of actions, but you have to look, I think we have an obligation, how could it go wrong? How could it go off in some direction we did not anticipate? So I thought about the various broadcasting companies we see and the divergence over the broadcast and how much it will cost and that type of thing, and how we can craft something here to deal with that. So I am just giving you kind of what is on my mind. To take a look at your proposal. 

I think if I heard you correctly, you are saying, how could I make sure that there is no bias in the execution of this -- >> -- A good example, we could start with that. Maybe other things, as well. 

Well, I know that I said a couple of times, in System73's advisory opinion request, that we would like every candidate to be our client. So, there is not a whole lot of bias there. And in your advisory opinion, voter voter, cited in here, you made a point of saying, you are motivated by commercial content, aren't you? They said yes. You said approved. That we are motivated for the same reasons that they were motivated that you cited in the draft, that you are a for- profit corporation, wanting to have political committees as clients and customers. There is no Republican System73, no Democratic System73, there is just one and it holds all the patents on this broadband Internet connectivity land. But I am mindful and I will be mindful, in supervising the client from here on, that -- don't overpay and make sure your payments are in sync with each other. And remember, payments come not necessarily from the discretion of System73, but from the advertising revenue that is placed on and around those speeches. Those advertisers are going to ask System73 the same thing they ask CBS when they are approached for an ad in the Super Bowl. How many eyeballs do you have? And the number of eyeballs is going to be the determining factor largely for the advertising revenue. Figuring out if Kellogg's or whoever wants to be on the screens. And also, the political committees , it is in their interest to drive their people to the System73 channel, because the more open screens there are that we can show an advertiser, the higher we will be able to charge that advertiser. We say candidate X has a lot of people watching, here is what our analytics show his viewership was on the last appearance. And why was that so high? Because candidate X went about shouting and telling people, go watch me at 9:30 on System73. Pushing his people toward that. So, there are safeguards and failsafes built into this, because I know the sensitivity of the commission. I work here. I get it. But I also know, there is not a bogeyman behind every advisory opinion. 

The quote of the day. 

Sometimes they are just advisory opinions. 

That's right. 

Mister vice chair. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any further questions. I really appreciate you going through this and explaining this model. It is one thing to read it on a page, but to actually interact and get a much more clear understanding of what the business model is and what you envision and how this fits within the system of precedents that we have within commission 80's. I personally could see a path forward to approving this. I am still working through some things myself. I don't have a draft, but I think Justin reading through the proposal, your comments, and studying some of these issues myself, also as a result of this exchange, I might be able to get there. However, I would look to my colleagues, knowing that we all swim or sink together. I also don't want to create false hope or waste anyone's time, if that would be a fruitless venture. So I just want to look to my colleagues and see whether or not that is worthwhile pursuing, creating an alternative draft and seeing what that looks like. If it is not, then we could reach some sort of resolution today, but I want to see the preference of my colleagues. 

I am certainly open to looking at a way forward, if it is a possibility. In our conversations, not just you and me, but the whole conversations today. 

Thank you. 

I don't know. I'm not there yet, but I am happy to consider another draft. 

Okay. 

And tell him what you want them to do. 

If we have further follow-ups or factual issues or questions we might have, we can certainly convey those to you. But certainly, appreciate you going well beyond the mark for answering our questions and giving us a much clearer understanding of what it is that this company would like to accomplish. It has been extremely helpful. 

I am happy to do it. I have a lot of learning to do myself, before I could speak. 

Well, it is much appreciated. 

Thank you. It is always a pleasure. 

Thank you. 

Madam Chair , we do have a deadline May 20 and the next meeting is May 23, so if the commission wishes to consider this at the next meeting we need an extension from counsel. 

Granted. 

That was easy. If only it was always that easy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Engle. Okay, well, that was interesting. [ Laughter ] the next item on the agenda is Commissioner Walther's motion to expand deadlines for timely processing of enforcement matters. Commissioner Walther. >> Since there is not much to add, people here are totally aware of. This is just one more step, hopefully, to move us in the direction of improving our enforcement system. And the last several two or three years, motions coming and going, we made a lot of headway in terms of transparency. So the Republic now knows, really has a very good idea of where we are and where we are not, in connection with the way we are handling enforcement. So that is fine and it seemed to me that maybe that knowledge that we have, that others have, the knowledge of how we are doing and not doing, might help us move along with more levity, but I think we still need some work done --so I would propose something along this line. I don't think anyone is really going to vote yes on this, but simply a process by which we can measure ourselves to get something done. And, you know, by the time we got through the transparency, you know, policies, I think that are really going to be helpful, we can now identify the problem and it turns out the problem is us. Getting the work done. So, this proposes simply that it would be nine months from the date of filing a complaint to the date we would see a draft from the office of General Counsel with a recommendation and then there is a series of three months from the date of circulation. Bear in mind, that at any time if we were to adopt this we could modify this at any time. So the time schedule really is to set something that is realistic, but also fair. Not just fair in terms of getting the work done and can we get it done in time, but fair to the people who filed the complaint, who are entitled to get action on the complaint. The people who are on the wrong end of the complaint, so they don't have to worry about it for the next two or three years, even though we may have had a recommendation at the Office of the General Counsel to sit on it for a year or two. While people want to know what is going to happen. I think that this may be a way to energize us and make us realize that our job is not just to decide, but to decide with a reasonable amount of dispatch. I know what the vote is going to be. I will bring it up in another session or two. There is a little more to consider in connection with what we do and referring cases out to the Department of Justice and how to deal with some of that. Overall, for us to be here and to have these cases come before us, and to lose them on the statute of limitations, when clearly if we acted with an amount of reasonable dispatch, it is really a travesty. I don't see how we can let ourselves do that. So, I hope we can at least not let us lose a case or lose the opportunity to consider a case, just because we let the time lapse unnecessarily. 

Commissioner Hunter. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Commissioner Walther for your proposals. I would like to take a lot more time to consider them. Not only tell the next meeting. The reason for that is, we have some fine people in the office of General Counsel who are working very hard to move matters quickly and we have already seen some improvement. Thank you to Ms. Stevenson and Mister Kutcher who is here. We appreciate his stepping up to take that role. Some people think it is one of the hardest in the building and I agree. 

Associate General Counsel. 

Thank you, associate General Counsel for enforcement. Some good things are happening. We made some changes at the end of last year to move some of the easier cases off their docket into places that might be more useful to both the committee and the commission in ADR and a new campaign finance school as I like to call it. So I think there are good things happening. I look forward --they have committed to us to take some time. Again, he is new. To take some time to come up with some suggestions to improve the overall program. I would like to wait before I vote on any of these things. Give him a few months to get used to the job and see how things are going. We, on this side of the table, proposed a number of years ago in the enforcement manual, certain deadlines on the Office of General Counsel. People in the office of General Counsel didn't agree with them and neither did my colleagues, so we have looked at this type of thing in the past and I am happy to take another look at it, but I would like --and come up with some suggestions. I have a lot of confidence that they will have >> I think we ought to empower them to replace them, at least on a 142 basis. Let them replace one out of every two people detailed somewhere else. We are getting reports up to us for decision on a pace that I have not seen, I think in my time here. I think every week it seems like there are a dozen new ballots and some are straightforward and easy, but others are complicated and hard. There is a lot of work going on downstairs. I think it could be done better. I asked last year or the year before, I asked Ms. Stevenson and the head of enforcement to come up with a set of proposals for us on what they thought would help and I was ready to endorse virtually every one of them. Not every Commissioner was. So, we haven't had support with hiring more lawyers. Support for all of the ideas that our lawyers have suggested to us that they think would help them process cases more quickly. And there is us. There are cases that sit on Commissioner's desks for way too long. There are cases that have been held up by commissioners for literally years on end and I have said this before. I think that is unacceptable. And I don't think, I wish there was some way to write a directive that would tie commissioners hands in a way that they would not be able to do that, but we have not been able to come up with that yet. And if we did, I don't think we would have the votes for it. So I think I share Commissioner Walther's concerns on this and will continue to be happy to work with him or any member of the commission. In fact, we would need to work with all of the commission because everything needs to be unanimous these days, to try to address some long-standing problems. I also am delighted with -- having stepped up to take on one of the most thankless tasks in the building. It is a huge workload. He came over from our litigation division, which I think is good training, because litigators get their briefs in on time. So I know he is bringing that sense of time sensitivity with him in his new role and he and I have had many productive discussions about timeliness already and I am sure we will continue having those discussions. I don't think because we happen to have someone who is relatively new in that role, that we have to wait to address long-standing problems in the timely processing of complaints. I completely agree with Commissioner Walther. It is unclear to the subjects of the complaints, unfair to the complainants and unfair to the public. It is unfair to everyone in the campaign finance community trying to figure out where the lines are and they are waiting to see. They hear about these complaints getting filed and they don't see any resolution of them, so they don't know what is coming on. Does the commission think this is a problem, is it not a problem, is it being investigated or is it sitting around waiting? So, I think this is a huge, long-standing problem for the commission and I support any effort to make improvements in that area. 

So, Commissioner Walther said he is not asking for a vote on this today. Any other comments on this? Well then, we will move along to the perhaps not unrelated topic of meeting dates. You know, it has taken months to get the meeting dates for the rest of the year, which is a little bit disappointing. I had hoped to have a more aggressive schedule for the rest of the year. I think it will be helpful for us to meet more often, because a lot of decisions don't get made until we sit down at the table and have a vote. And it didn't, the commission didn't always work that way. The commission used two, way back when, vote on 73 our tally. I don't know if there is anybody, there are a couple of folks in the room who still remember those days, where a ballot would come up and commissioners would vote within 72 hours, within 30 days. And actually make substantive votes. If commissioners wanted to make edits for legal analysis that went behind, that supported some of the recommendations, they would shoot an email to their colleagues and it would often be resolved before the next meeting. We have only the most substantive matters that really required every member of the commission to sit down together and hash them out. It would end up on the agenda for the executive session. We have those meetings every two weeks and would clear the docket before lunch. We don't do business like that anymore. Since it seems to take meetings to make decisions, I think we ought to have more of them. I think we are paid by the taxpayers to work full-time and four meeting dates a month is not enough to get our work done, so I have proposed a lot more meeting dates and could not get agreement to do pretty much anything other than the historical, twice a month, Tuesday Thursday schedule. We are meeting in executive session on Thursdays in addition to Tuesdays, which we don't do all the time, in order to try to move cases forward. I was able to get agreement for one additional executive session in June, but the rest of it is pretty much the way it has always been. But, there are only four of us so we need all four commissioners to agree to show up, either in person or electronically or on the phone. I guess we are not doing it electronically by email, but we have to have commissioners and present either in person or by phone to meet and these are the dates commissioners have been willing to agree to meet. So that is the schedule for the rest of the year. >> Commissioner Hunter. 

I am tired of arguing about this, but I want to say that having more meeting dates doesn't mean we are necessarily more productive. I will leave it at that today. 

It's true, it requires people to show up at the meetings ready to vote on the agenda. 

Can we just move on? >> Tired of hearing about it, I am sorry to bore you. Mister Vice Chairman. 

Madam Chair, if there are not any more comments on approval of the meeting dates for the second half of this year, I support the agenda document, number 19-19-a. 

I do think maybe we could take a look at some point in the near future and really think about that. If we think we can meet four, five, six more times in the year and get the cases set up so we can be more efficient, I think we should take a look at that and I will certainly vote for this. 

The Vice Chairman has moved approval of the meeting dates as set forth in agenda document 19-19-a. Is there any further discussion on the motion? If not I will call the question. All in favor say aye. The motion passes unanimously. Mister Palmer, do we have any management or administrative matters to discuss? 

Madam Chair, there are no such matters. 

Thank you, that being the case, this meeting is adjourned.