This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on January 14, 2021. 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  opening meeting of the federal election  commission for Thursday, January  14, 2021 will come to order. At  the start of the meeting  I'd like to give opening remarks  and invite any commissioners would  like to do so to please let me know.  I'm happy to do so. So bear with  me. Welcome to the federal election  commission first open meeting  of 2021 it marks our first meeting  since June of  last year I'd  like to welcome my  feller commissioners for taking  over the helm of the commission  on  the short notice in June  and seeing us to the end of a tumultuous  year. Appeared when we not only  lacked decorum but were fronted  with significant challenges associated  with the pandemic. I look forward  to working with  vice chair Dickerson, both of whom I've  had the pleasure of knowing during  the nomination process last year.  I enjoyed working closely with Commissioner  Weintraub as the staff member and  I look forward to doing so as a  Commissioner 2021. And again, I  express my sincere  gratitude to Commissioner Walther  for operating the opportunity to  work with him over the past several  years.  Two years in which he served  as vice chair and one euro he was  chair. Hopefully I've learned a  thing or two from him about being  an  effective Commissioner, chair, and  equally important developing the  kind and  considerate person. Of course I  want to praise our dedicated and  hard-working staff for their exemplary  and  three fourths during these difficult  times. It's fair to say we were  dealt a triple blow  this year. Like most federal workers our employees  had to figure out how to perform  their jobs and keep this agency  running smoothly without access  to  their offices, while simultaneously carrying for  the loved ones and dealing with  the general upheaval created by  Covid painting crisis. At the same  time, given that so many Americans  have endured such severe economic  hardship as a result of the pandemic,  I am sure I speak for many of our  colleagues when I say that we are  fortunate we were able to still  have a job. As you might expect  our workload tends to increase during  presidential election years. 2020  stands out far. The sheer volume  of campaign-finance activity in  2020 shattered many  records. The 2020 election was roughly  twice as expensive as the 2016 election  in terms of presidential congressional  spending. As you can  imagine this translated into substantially  more work for our staff. We did  a fantastic job getting accurate  and timely information out to the  public regarding the amounts and  resources raised and spent during  the election.  And finally, 
     the actions of a quorum for approximately  15 out of the last 16 months, proved  to be unique and a daunting challenge  for our agency. Although the commission  was prevented from leaving basic  policymaking enforcing functions,  our employees continue to feel are  crucial mission of providing transparency  and  enforcing administering federal campaign finance laws.  As disclosure filings increased,  our staff rose to the occasion by  reviewing, processing, and making  public,  millions of pages of disclosure  information's and hundreds of millions  of transactions. They continue to  diligently litigate ongoing court  cases, examine them  in process new responses and analyze and investigate  enforcement matters to the maximum  extent possible. I don't wish  to 12 on statistics but I think  it's important for the public  to grasp the magnitude of data that  we handled and every increasing  volume of information that our employees  process in an efficient and timely  manner. For example, in comparison  to the last presidential cycle we  processed five times more financial  transactions and  reviewed more than the number of  pages of  disclosure reports. Interested  in detailed figures? See the written  version of my statement available  on the Secretary website.   Without the minimum number of commissioners,  it was simply not possible to make  progress in certain areas. My  colleague Commissioner Weintraub  formed great disservice by periodically  disseminating figures on the backlog.  For example, she noted that around  the time  of the  the court last month there were  446 enforcement matters pending  before this  agency. This account all matters for the commission  and everything being held in our  General Counsel's office, including  275 staff reports that sat atop  our desks waiting  commission decision. We now must collectively  roll up our sleeves to tackle these  matters both complex and simple.  As chair, my main priority will  be to focus our intention on the  numerous enforcement cases that  are in peril by impending statute  of limitations. I am hopeful that  we can make progress in other areas  as well. Such as promulgating rules  that curb activities at scam pack.  Committees that employ misleading  tactics to divert funds that contributors  believe they were donating in support  of the favorite campaign and causes.  I also hope we can achieve a consensus  on new rules for Internet disclaimer  and Internet advertising disclaimers.  The need for having these rules  in place increases in tandem with  the growing use of social media  as a campaign tool. The lack of  a quorum has left the commission  unable to send legislative recommendations  to Congress is 2018. I hope that we can achieve  consensus this year. As we have  been able to do so in the past.  And agree on sensible measures for  Congress to consider. For example,  we should revisit proposals to extend  the prohibition of  conversion of campaign funds to personal  use. To prohibit aiding or abetting  the making of contributions in the  name of another. In addition, we  can do more to take advantages of  social media, by using and making  educational tools readily available  to the public. We have made  great improvements to our website  over the past few years and will  continue to do so this year. I'm  keenly aware that the public often  uses this as a primary tool for  engagement. And I want to take a moment to reflect  on recent events related to our  elections which have been both encouraging  and disheartening. Almost 160 million  Americans voted in the November  general election. The most in history  by far. And American to citizen  show the resolve by casting votes  in the  Midshipman- seventh global pandemic.  While encountering structural and  legal barriers to voting. We have  sadly  witnessed the agility of our democracy  and our capital last week. As my  fellow commissioners and I affirmed  to the FEC staff last week, the  work that all of  you do for this important role in promoting  participation in our democracy and  protecting the integrity of  our elections. Despite our differences the commissioners  and the FEC staff are committed  to joining efforts towards  that goal. I'm enthusiastically  looking forward to working with  everyone as we forge ahead  in 2021. I would like to  echo the  kind resolve.  I think you properly set up the  challenges that faced us as a  nation but I think it's only fair  to acknowledge my personal gratitude  for your leadership as chair as  we tackle those challenges. Also  my hope that as we  move forward the warm welcome and  professionalism that us newcomers  have received from the staff will  continue and I just wanted to add  my personal  thoughts that I think it's very disappointing  that were not able to do this in  person posts for reasons of health  and security and that it's very  much my hope that we will  be able to once again gathering  place and -- gather in person. Any  other  commission speak.  >> All in favor the motion.  Okay past. Thank  you. Weed like to  put this next item on the agenda.  Advised the opinion to refresh 2020  -- to submitted. Joined  Are welcome being that were virtual.  Any other time we  see you right here we welcome you in  person as the vice chair mentioned.  We have Kevin from OCC to discuss  this matter. And I believe Amy Ross  is here. Let's proceed. Is there  any discussion? >>Thank you Madam chair. Good morning  commissioners  and welcome. We are happy to have  you and we look forward to working  with you. Before an  agenda document. In response to  a request from John to trend. A  U.S. citizen residing in Canada.  Asking several questions concerning  application of the act in commission  regulations to the proposed purpose  of political advertising sponsored  media platforms. The draft concludes  that the requester may make expenditures  in disbursements on political advertisements  because the act provides that U.S.  citizens are not foreign nationals.  No matter where  they reside . It does not  otherwise distinguish between a  U.S. citizen residing in the United  States and the U.S. citizen residing  abroad. The draft also concludes  that neither the act nor commission  regulations require the requester  to provide any media platform with  proof of a U.S. bank account,  financial instruments strong in  the West Bank, or a U.S. residential  address, as a prerequisite for political  advertisements on their platforms.  The draft further explains that  this advisory opinion cannot serve  as legal proof that the  requester is a U.S. citizen or relieve  any entities of its obligation to  comply with the act of commission  regulations. We did not receive  any comments on the request. We  received one comment on the draft  from the requester which has been  circulated to the commissioners  and posted commission website. I'm  happy to address any questions that  you have. Thank you.  >>Thank  you Mr. Paulsen. And it  discussions from Mr. Bertrand?  >>I pretty much put everything in  the comments so if that is addressed,  that's the most I can ask at  this point.  >>Any Commissioner discussion  questions of Mr. Bertrand or OTC? Seeing none,  is there a motion in this  matter?  >>I have  to. Commissioner Weintraub would  like to make a motion?  >>I would ,  but I support  the draft as is. The vice chair and I have  been having a little bit of back  and forth about whether there needs  to be some tweaking of the language.  The point I think is important to  make here. Because  my sense is that Mr. Bertran would  like us to give  him something that  he can show to Facebook that says  you're not allowed to ask me for  anything other than my pass code.  We cannot do that this opinion is  not going to be a thing that I think  you are seeking. The first amendment  says that Congress shall make no  law of freedom of speech.  It does  not say anything about what private companies  can do. A person can have a first  amendment right to speak but that  doesn't mean any platform or media  outlet or any publisher has an  obligation to provide a forum for  that message.  I might write what I think is the  great American novel and I don't  think that any publisher  has to publish it they  might disagree with me. Sometimes  people make political contributions  which they are absolutely entitled  to do and for whatever reason the  recipient committee might  return it they don't have to accept it. Even  though you have a First Amendment  right you don't have to accept it  for any reason whatsoever. And of  course the background  is adopted are  what happened in the 2016  election where the Russian  government  was working with the government, were placing  ads on Facebook and paying for them  in rubles. And Facebook didn't notice  because they had no screening mechanisms  in place. When the  stories first came out that it  was happening they said it's crazy  but more and more  evident came out that made it fairly  compelling and convincing that yes  indeed  it happened. Facebook felt they  needed to respond and in the deed  we do have regulations that say  we are not allowed or they are  not allowed to assist anyone in  making a foreign national contribution.  We do not have specific rules on  how they go about making sure that  they are not assisting a foreign  national and making a prophetic  contribution. Have adopted screening  procedures and  those procedures may not be perfect.  They  may not be the only way that Facebook  could've gone about doing this.  But they are the procedures.  We don't have any mechanism for  telling Facebook that you can't  use those screening procedures.  We don't acquire perfection it is  up to them how they go  about trying to comply with the  law. Personally I'm glad to have  adopted screening procedures. I  think it was important for them  to do so. So I think this may end  up being  a somewhat less than satisfactory  experience for  the requester but, if it makes you  feel any better. There are a lot  of other fairly  prominent people these days who  are discovering that just because  they want to speak they don't necessarily  get a platform to do so and private  entities do not need to provide  a platform to them. So I will yield  to the vice chairman to say his  two cents on how he  would like to see the draft amended.  I do not think  that anybody disagrees on the basic  point that why the law does not  specifically require you to provide  the information that Facebook is  asking for. Neither does it preclude  them from asking you for that information.  And we cannot tell them that they  are not allowed to do that  so that is just the way it  is, sorry.  >> Thank you. I'd like to begin by  noting that I would absolutely read  Commissioner Weintraub  novel. You're  absolutely right Commissioner Weintraub.  I find   myself not only on the question  of statutory law but also on the  question of first amendments,  jurist prudence. I  think the issue again is that  the commission is bound by  law  and we have a narrow mission that's  been given to us by Congress in  a specific act. That's the four  corners of our authority and I think  it's possibly historic missed opportunity  that Congress missed  and naming it and I think it's misleading  in the scope of our authority and  discretion. But, that was a  decision made by the people's elected  representatives and not one element  position to question. To  the draft  at hand. The only concern I  have is following up with  what  Commissioner Weintraub said. The  fact  to what Mr. Bertran and Kent be  required to do under  the act. Again, it's not a deep  disagreement to policy at the question  of the appropriate role in our advisory  opinion process.  I have circulated  a revised paragraph which largely  eliminates one of the reasons I  wish were in person is because I  would have all of this out on physical  paper.  There is a  paragraph beginning ,  in general  it notes that the commission  has generally approved the  agreement for procedures to allow  entities  to meet their legal obligations.  My only concern is  the last portion of the paragraph  on page number six. Where we save  these  entities require and then we give  specific examples. I think  we are getting in over our skis  here and it's maybe a minor point  but as a point to jurisdiction  and procedure and is a  former practicing litigator. These  are things that I care about. So  that my position on that. I'm happy  to answer questions or  work with the Commissioner to find  appropriate compromised language  if she's open  to that.  >> Thank you anymore Commissioner questions  or  discussion?  >>Madam chair.  >>Commissioner Walther Turk  >>I welcome the atmosphere and wish  we are discussing these  narratives.  It's a pleasure to see us agree  though be disagreeable  and I'm happy to see such a nice  warm step in  that direction. Either one of the  ways we go today  is fine with me. I think we need  to tread lightly in  the area and be a little more proactive  as we now begin to rain our  ability to do a number of things  we've been able to do with this  new atmosphere the way we  communicate. So either one is satisfactory  to me. And  I welcome to begin to take a  look at maybe a  rulemaking  or advisory policies so  that we can give  guidance  without becoming the enforcer. I  miss stepping away so either one  is satisfactory  to me.  >>Thank you Commissioner  Walther.  

Commissioner  Weintraub.  >>Thank you Madam chair. I   have been encouraged with how collegial  all of our discussions have been  so far. I think it's pretty easy  on this one because we are pretty  close to being in agreement. The  commissioners have a copy of  this paragraph but  the public does not so it might  be confusing. I have been going  back  and forth to the benefit of the public up  until before the meeting and indeed  during the meeting we have emailed  each other to try and figure out  how exactly want to tweak the language.  Usually not the best way of writing.  To be doing it on the fly in the  meeting. But, why not. We can build  the plane while we are flying it.  My concern is, I generally don't  have a problem with  the way we cast the  paragraph  except  for the last sentence that we wrote.  Neither the act nor commission regulations  required to provide such proof as  a prerequisite to the online political  advertisements nor have they had  the ability to adopt  a review the particular -- if  we could add something in there  that emphasizes the fact that while  we are not  opining on these particular screening  procedures.  They are allowed to adopt those  procedures. I don't want to create  the misimpression that we are telling  Facebook how to do their  screening procedures. What the can  or cannot  acquire.  >>Madam chair.  >>Commissioner  Cooksey.  >>Would it be satisfactory  to  Commissioner Weintraub if we  took  the paragraph as circulated  and appended to the end of  the final sentence, something to  the effect of we express no views  about these screening procedures  at issue or something more explicit  that we are not signaling  in one direction or the other. About  those procedures.  >> Madam  chair.  >>Commissioner Weintraub.  

 I think  that's suggested in the  way that it's  currently worded. I'm trying to  go smidge further  than  that. Maybe the act  or  commission regulations require you  provide such proof as a prerequisite  to the purchase of online  political  advertisements, the  commission has not had occasion to review  the particular screening procedures  adopted by Facebook and expresses  no views on them. However as noted  above they are permitted  to adopt  screening procedures. As a  general matter they are allowed.  Something like that. Does  that work? >>Madam chair.  >>I, this is  originally vice  chair Dickerson's concern and I  will allow him to weigh  in. Something to that  effect. I can defer to my colleagues  whether we want to get the exact  language down here on the fly or  wait until we are all looking at  the same text. Something  very close to what  he said. >>First of all I apologize  in advance if technical difficulties  on my end pose  a challenge  to you. I guess that's  just the world were living in these  days. I think again we are  in agreement's. My reading of this  is that the point was already made  earlier in the paragraph where we  note that screening procedures have  been approved we have three prior  AO's that show  so. I don't have any objections  to that point but I think  it's important to [  Indiscernible ] For opining  on particular practices  that are in front  of us. I  don't know how we do this procedurally.  Maybe before we make  the agency  orally over uncertain and stable  Internet connections has some obvious  Prudential merit. I'll defer to  my colleagues on this  procedure.  >>We have a couple of options available  to us procedurally. If  we want to do  this at the meeting we could take  a short recess and hammer it back  and forth  I think people generally have the  drift of what were doing. We could  not  adopted at the meeting but after  the meeting we could hammer out  the language  and adopt the AO that way. I'm happy  to do it  either way. Estimate my inclination is to do  it by tally to have a  little more conversation. I think  the public is pretty well apprised  of where we stand on this.  But again, I'm happy to defer if  others feel  differently.  >>I agree with the tally option  is proving a little  difficult with trying to manage  all the monitors and screens to  see everything and the emails coming  in with the information. It might  be a little bit  more efficient if we could  do this on tally. I  see head shaking so it  looks like we have some consensus  which is where we are going this  year. So, let's hold this one over.  Thank you  Mr. Bertrand for appearing today  we hope to get an answer for you  soon.  >>Thank you very much for taking  the time.  >> Technology is throttling everyone.  My screen is blinking so I guess  that's the word -- world threat.  The next item we have is audit division  recommendation memorandum on Mississippi  Republican Party. This matter has  been  held over it will appear on our  next open matter  agenda. Audit division  recommendation memorandum for Congress  was resolved  on tally.  The audit  recommendation memorandum for  a strong economy. We have Jonathan  and Erica of the  audit division and  if you'd like to proceed with the  presentation  had.  >>Good morning. Before the audit  division maker  random -- committee for a strong  economy was submitted to the commission  for consideration on November 13th  2020. The a DRM provides the staff  recommendation for the final draft  audit report. This memorandum presents  they own recommendation for  two findings. One  is the statement of financial activity  for increased activity and  the disclosure  of contributions for the federal candidate committees.  The committee received the draft  final order report on October 22,  2020 and had no comments or questions  and we are available  to answer any questions you might  have regarding the recommendation  memo or the outline findings. Thank  you.  >>Thank you. Any questions from  the commission?  >>None. Is there  a motion?  >>With their  hand raised?  >> Vice chair Dickerson did I interrupt  you?  >>You did not, I was going to offer  a motion.  >>I move the adoption of the audit  recommendation in  this matter.  >>Is there any discussion on  this motion? Let's call the matter for a vote.  All those in favor please say FECConnect  to  -- Aye, the matter  passes  six to nothing. Thanks to  the audit division for this presentation.  We have one more matter on the proposed  final  audit report, this matter was resolved  on tally. It  leads us to a question that we have  and that's for the  staff director. Are there  any management matters that the  commission needs to  discuss today? >>It looks like Alec  was having some  technical difficulties. >>We see them but I don't know if  he can  hear us.  >>With that, the meeting stands  adjourned.