This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on April 22, 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. 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 APRIL 22nd FOR 2021 WILL COME TO ORDER. WE HAD SOME LATE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS THIS MORNING. MR. VICE CHAIR? GOOD MORNING. I MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES ON THE TIMING SUBMISSION OF AGENDA DOCUMENTS IN ORDER THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE LATE SUBMISSION OF AGENDA DOCUMENTS 21 -- 22 -- A AND 21 -- 23 -- A1. THANK YOU VICE CHAIR. THE MOISTURE HAS SO MOVED, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE . I WAS NOT ABLE TO HEAR YOU, WERE YOU ABLE TO VOTE COMMISSIONER WALKER? HIT*62 ON MUTE SIR. THIS IS VICKI. TIFFANY? YES. THANK YOU. CAN I GET CONFIRMATION ABOUT COMMISSIONER WALKER? WITHOUT AUDIO AND TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THIS MORNING. I CAN'T SAY THE MOTION WITH THE FIVE THAT WE HAVE IS APPROVED SO BASED ON THAT, MADAM SECRETARY, THE VICE CHAIR MOTION HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 0 . WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ONTO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME CONFIRMATION WHETHER WE DO HAVE COMMISSIONER WALTER ONLINE OR IF HE HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED? AS A PROCEDURAL MATTER WE HAVE A HOLDOVER OF TWO ITEMS TODAY. ITEM NUMBER ONE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO DIRECTIVE 17 AND ITEM NUMBER FOUR , OIG FY 2022 APPROPRIATIONS LINGERS IS BEING HELD OVER TO FUTURE MEETING. THAT MOVES THAT DRAFT STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING THE CLOSING FILE AT THE INITIAL STAGE ENFORCEMENT PROVIDED BY VICE CHAIR ALLEN DICKERSON AND SEAN COOKSEY. >> OUTSTANDING, I'M DEALING WITH MULTIPLE DEVICES, I AM GLAD IT'S WORKING. AS I RECALL, THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL INDICATED BECAUSE THIS WAS A COMMISSIONER SUBMISSION TO ADOPT THE PRESENTATION FROM THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL SO WITH THE COMMISSION'S INDULGENCE I PREPARED A SHORT PRESENTATION WHICH MIGHT NOT BE AS ELOQUENT AS WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO PICK IT'S MY BEST EFFORT. IT IS TO SET THE STAGE FOR WHY WE FELT IT IMPORTANT ACTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO TAKE. AS I AM AND ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE ACUTELY AWARE, THIS COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH UNIQUE MISSION OF REGULATING POLITICAL SPEECH WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS LONG VIEWED AS LYING AT THE CORE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IN CREATING OUR AGENCY CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF NONPARTISAN DECISION-MAKING WHEN REGULATING THIS TYPE OF SPEECH. BY LAW, NO MORE THAN THREE COMMISSIONERS CAN REPRESENT THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AND FOUR VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO EXERCISE THE IMPORTANT DUTIES AND POWERS INCLUDING WHETHER WE DECIDE IF THE INITIAL STAGE TO FIND REASONABLY THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. A VOTE TO FIND REASON TO BELIEVE HOWEVER EVEN AT LEAST BY FOUR COMMISSIONERS DOES NOT END THE MATTER. ALLOWS THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL TO PROCEED WITH FURTHER EVALUATION AND TO MAKE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE DECLINE, THE MATTER IN BECAUSE WE LACK AUTHORITY UNDER THE STATUTE TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION. COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO CHALLENGE THAT DECISION IN COURT AND COMMISSIONERS WHO DO NOT SEE A SUFFICIENT BASIS TO FIND REASON TO BELIEVE ARE OBLIGATE A BYLAW TO PROVIDE THE RATIONALE TO THE PUBLIC EYE DRAFTING WHAT WE CALL A STATEMENT OF REASONS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IN SUCH CASES THE REVIEWING COURT MAKES THE FINAL CASES. UNTIL THE CASE IS RESOLVED IN THE FILE IS CLOSED THE COMMISSION IS DOWN BOUND BY CERTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THOSE INVOLVED IN THE MATTERS. CANNOT BE RELEASED TO THE PARTY OR TO THE PUBLIC UNTIL THE FILE FOR THAT MATTER IS CLOSED. FOR ROUGHLY THE FIRST QUARTER-CENTURY OF OUR EXISTENCE WE MADE PUBLIC ALL INTERNAL DOCUMENTATION OF ENFORCEMENT MATTER ONCE IT WAS RESOLVED BUT IN 2001, IN A CASE CALLED AFL CIO AGAINST THE FEC CIRCUIT WARNED AGAINST RELEASING ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC, THE COMMISSION MUST ATTEMPT TO AVOID UNNECESSARILY INFRINGING ON FIRST AMENDMENT INTERESTS" AND BALANCE THE COMMISSIONERS INTEREST IN DETERRING FUTURE VIOLATIONS AND PROMOTING ITS OWN ACCOUNT ABILITY WITH THESE FIRST AMENDMENT LIBERTIES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS EXERCISE AND ENSURING WE PROPERLY BALANCE THESE COMPETING INTERESTS IS AT THE HEART OF THIS PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT. IT HAS NOT ESCAPED OUR NOTICE THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT GAMESMANSHIP IN TERMS OF HOW THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS WHICH EXIST TO PROTECT RESPONDENTS ARE IN PRACTICE, MOBILIZED AND USED AGAINST THEM. IT'S A FAMILIAR SCENARIO. AN INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION FILES A COMPLAINT WITH THE COMMISSION AND THEN IMMEDIATELY THEY POSTED THAT COMPLAINT ON THE WEBSITE OR HEIRS AND ADD DESCRIBING THE ALLEGATION PROVIDES THE ONLY MEDIA OUTLET SO THEY CAN SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ALLEGEDLY VIOLATING FEDERAL ELECTION LAW. THE COMPLAINANTS GET THE BENEFIT OF INDIGNANT MEDIA COVERAGE AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE MET WITH VIOLENCE AND ARE INJURED IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION BY THE STATUTE INTENDED TO PROTECT THEM. OFTEN RESPONDENTS ONLY RECOURSE IS TO WAIT UNTIL THE COMMISSION REACHES A RESOLUTION OF THE MATTER AND PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH NOTICE AND WE CLOSE THE FILE AND IT WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER ACTION. FAILED TO CLOSE THE FIRE THE RESPONDENTS WILL TWIST IN THE WIND. ADDITIONALLY IN THE CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILING TO CLOSE A FILE ARE ESPECIALLY TROUBLING. FOR EXAMPLE. SAFE WHEN IT FILES A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VOTE AND HAS DECLINED TO FIND REASON TO BELIEVE THE VOTES. HAS NEGLECTED FOR WHATEVER REASON TO CLOSE THE FILE AND SEND THE APPROPRIATE LETTERS. BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MADE OUR VOTE OR REASONING PUBLIC THE COMPLAINANT CAN REASONABLY ASSUME THAT WE HAVE NOT ACTED AT ALL. IF THE COMMISSION FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION TO THE COURT OR EVEN SHOW UP IN COURT, THE JUDGE COULD ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST US AND IF WE FAIL TO RESPOND TO JUDGMENT THE FEDERAL JUDGE DEPRIVED OF THE FACT TO DECLARE THE COMMISSION HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTIES UNDER THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT. MEANWHILE THE EXISTENCE OF THE VOTE ITSELF AND ANY ASSOCIATED STATEMENTS OF REASON NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSIONER. THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO WORK AND NOT THE WAY THE COURTS ARE PUBLIC HAVE LONG ASSUMED IT WORKS AND IT'S NOT A PROCESS THAT IS IN ANY WAY FARES THE INTEREST OF THE PARTIES BEFORE US, RESPONDENTS OR COMPLAINANTS. FOR THESE REASONS WE FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT TO PUT INTO PLACE A PROCESS THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY CLOSE THE FILE AT THE INITIAL STAGE OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS WHERE THERE ARE NOT AT LEAST MORE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE MATTER AT THAT STAGE, ABSENT TO KEEP IT OPEN FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. BY CLOSING THE FILE AND MAKING THE COMPLAINT, RESPONSE AND INTERNAL DOCUMENTS PUBLIC WE ENSURE THE CREDIBILITY OF OUR ENFORCEMENT BY PROVIDING COMPLAINANTS CORRESPONDENCE AND THE PUBLIC WITH TRANSPARENCY REGARDING THE REASONING AND WE PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW AS COURSE CONSIDER OUR ARGUMENTS IN LITIGATION RACE FOR MONEY MATTERS WE CONSIDER. ACCOUNTING CONSIDERATIONS IS PART AND PARCEL OF FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF OUR MISSION. ULTIMATELY COMMISSION IT FAILS TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH AN ACCOUNTANT OF ITS DECISIONS AND REASONING MAKES IT SO A PARTY TO A FARCE OR TRAGEDY OR PERHAPS IN SOME CASES BOTH. FOR THESE REASONS I SINCERELY HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL JOIN ME IN APPROVING THIS DOCUMENT AND ENSURING THAT THE COMMISSION OPERATES OPENLY SO THAT OUR ACTIONS CAN BE REVIEWED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE US PUBLIC AND THE COURTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL WHICH BASICALLY TAKES THE DECISION TO DISMISS A CASE OUT OF THE HANDS OF A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF COMMISSIONERS. WE AGREE THE DECISIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MADE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS AND WOULD VEST IT WITH A PARTISAN MINORITY OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT IS INDEED A POINT. THAT IS REALLY WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS REALLY WORKS AND WHAT IS BEHIND IT, ONE HAS TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT AT THE HISTORY OF THE COMMISSION. THIS ALL COMES DOWN TO WHAT HAPPENS WE CANNOT AGREE, WHAT HAPPENS IN SPLIT VOTES CASES. FOR MOST OF THE COMMISSION'S HISTORY SPLIT VOTES WERE FAIRLY RARE. THE COMMISSIONERS WORK PRETTY HARD TO FIND COMMON GROUND TO REACH A CONSENSUS, TO FIND SOMEPLACE WHERE COMMISSIONERS COULD LAND. THINGS STARTED TO CHANGE IN 2008 WE HAD SUBSTANTIAL TURNOVER ON THE COMMISSION AFTER THE FIRST TIME WE LOST CORM AND WHEN THE CORM WAS REGAINED THERE WAS TURNOVER AND A NEW WAY OF DOING BUSINESS AROUND HERE. SPLIT VOTES STARTED TO RISE AND PENALTIES STARTED TO DECLINE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, MYSELF INCLUDED THANK ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW SUFFERED. IN VIRTUALLY EVERY SPLIT VOTE CASE IN THE LAST 12 YEARS IT'S EARLY DAYS SOME TALKING MOSTLY HISTORICALLY, WITH A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS, VIRTUALLY EVERY CASE WHERE THE COMMISSION SPLIT, REGARDLESS OF WHO WAS THE RESPONDENT THE VOTE COUNT WAS THE SAME, THE REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONERS VOTED AGAINST TAKING ANY STEP TO ENFORCE THE LAW , AGAINST OPENING AND INVESTIGATION, AGAINST IS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED, AGAINST TRYING TO SETTLE THE CASE AND THE DEMOCRATIC AND INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONERS VOTED IN FAVOR OF TAKING SOME STEP TO ENFORCE THE LAW. THIS WAS A CHANGE IN THE WAY THE COMMISSION HAD FUNCTIONED IN THE PAST BECAUSE AS I SAID, IT DID NOT MATTER WHO THE RESPONDENT WAS IN ANY OF THESE CASES. IT COULD'VE BEEN A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, IT HAPPENED WHEN THE RESPONDENT WAS HILLARY CLINTON, IT HAPPENED WHEN IT WAS DONALD TRUMP AND IT HAPPENED WHEN IT WAS THE PRO-RUSSIAN PARTY OF REGIONS. 3-3 VOTES OR 2-2 VOTES DEPENDING ON THE COMMISSIONERS ON BOARD AT THE TIME. DEMOCRATIC AND INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONERS VOTING TO MOVE FORWARD AND REPUBLIC COMMISSIONS TO BLOCK ENFORCEMENT. THE ONE SMALL POWER THAT IS LEFT TO THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO SEE THE LAW ENFORCED IS THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO DISMISS THE CASE OR WHETHER THERE IS SOME PATH FORWARD THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON. THIS POLICY WOULD TAKE THAT DECISION AWAY FROM US. WE WOULD CEDE CONTROL TO OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. THEY WOULD GET TO DECIDE WHEN A CASE GOT TO BE DISMISSED AND WHEN IT DIDN'T. AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, IF THERE ARE VOTES TO DO ANYTHING THEN THE CASE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY CLOSE. WE WOULD NOT HAVE THAT VOTE TO CLOSE THE FILE AND DISMISS THE CASE. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAW THAT SAYS ALL DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE EXERCISE OF ITS DUTIES AND POWERS UNDER THE PROVISION OF THIS ACT SHALL BE MADE BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID, MANY AND MOST OF THE IMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE MADE ON A FOR VAIL DECISION. WE HAVE A DIRECTIVE THAT SAYS EVEN IF SHE MADE ON A FOUR VOTE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE BIPARTISANSHIP. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CASES WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN LONG DISCUSSIONS, MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS OVER MULTIPLE MEETINGS, WE'VE HAD CASES THAT HAVE STRETCHED ON FOR MONTHS AND CASES THAT HAVE STRETCHED ON FOR YEARS WHILE COMMISSIONERS WENT BACK AND FORTH AND TRY TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THE MATTER. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT HAVING A CASE DRAG ON THAT LONG IS THE IDEAL SITUATION BUT COMMISSIONERS WERE EXERCISING THEIR ROLE UNDER THE STATUTE AND TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO. WE'VE HAD MANY CASES WHERE THERE WERE VOTES ON A MATTER AND ONE MEETING AND IN THE CASE WOULD BE HELD OVER AND WE WOULD DISCUSS IT IN A FURTHER MEETING AND SOMETIMES IT WOULD GET DELAYED THROUGH ANY NUMBER OF MEETINGS AND NONE OF THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE AND SOMETIMES AT THE END OF THE DAY WE CAME TO SOME RESOLUTION AFTER ALL THAT TIME PICK NONE OF THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE UNDER THIS PROVISION UNLESS OF COURSE WE HAD THE PERMISSION OF OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES TO HOLD THE CASE OVER LONGER. ONCE THERE WAS ONE MOTION MADE UNDER THIS POLICY IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY CLOSE THE FILE UNLESS THERE WERE FOUR VOTES TO HOLD IT OPEN. JUST TO GIVE A SENSE ON HOW NONSENSICAL THIS POLICY WOULD BE IN PRACTICE, THERE COULD BE A MOTION TO DISMISS THAT FAILED, THE VOTE COUNT COULD BE ANYTHING , THE MOTION TO DISMISS FAILS THEREFORE THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BUT NO, UNDER THIS MAGICAL POLICY AFTER THE MOTION TO DISMISS FAILS THE CASE IS DISMISSED ANYWAY. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL, HEADS YOU WIN AND TALES I LOSE. I DON'T NEED YOUR PERMISSION TO EXERCISE MY AUTHORITY AS A COMMISSIONER . THIS IS NOT THE WAY THE COMMISSION HAS EVER DONE BUSINESS PICK WE CANNOT DELEGATE OUR AUTHORITY TO ANY OTHER PERSON INCLUDING ANOTHER COMMISSIONER. I THINK THIS POLICY WOULD BE BAD FOR ENFORCEMENT AND IT WOULD DIMINISH THE ROLE OF THE DEMOCRATIC AND INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE A STRONGER INTEREST IN ENFORCING THE LAW. I DON'T KNOW WHY I WOULD AGREE TO SUCH A POLICY, IT WAS IRONICALLY ANNOUNCED ON APRIL FOOLS' DAY AND I THINK I WOULD BE A FULL TO SUPPORT THIS POLICY. I WOULD BE GIVING UP THE AUTHORITY AND POWER THAT I HAVE UNDER THE STATUTE TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AND LEAVE THEM SOLELY IN CHARGE OF WHEN CASES GET DISMISSED. FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS POLICY. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR PLEASE? >> A FEW THOUGHTS I THINK OF BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE ANALYSIS. I WOULD ADD ONE FAIRLY IMPORTANT VARIABLE TO COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB'S TIMELINE. IN 2008 THINGS CHANGED AND PERSONNEL ON THE COMMISSION, I THINK SHE IGNORES THE FAIRLY OBVIOUS FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COVERING THIS AGENCY SHIFTED DRAMATICALLY IN 2007 AND 2008. SHE SAID HEADS YOU WIN AND TALES I LOSE AND I THINK SHE IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE JOB GOT A LOT HARDER IN THAT TIME AND I UNDERSTAND SHE DISAGREES AND THAT'S HER PRIVILEGE, THEY DO BIND US. ONE OF THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION IS NOT THE PRIVILEGE OF IGNORING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SUPREME COURT ON MATTERS OF THE LAW, I WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT PART OF THE NARRATIVE. I THINK WHAT HAS DEVELOPED IS THAT AS THE LAW HAS SHIFTED AND THE VOLUME OF COMPLAINTS HAS RISEN, IT HAS BECOME HARDER, MORE HARD CASES WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS SO YES, IT HAS BEEN HARDER TO REACH CONSENSUS AND COMPROMISE. I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE POINT. I WORKED VERY HARD FOR COMPROMISE IN THIS ROLE AND I RESPECTFULLY THINK I ACCOMPLISH IT TO SOME REGULARITY BUT COMPROMISE IS NOT SYMMETRICAL IN THE CONTEXT OF ENFORCEMENT. IF YOU SINCERELY BELIEVE THERE IS A VIOLATION THAT HAS OCCURRED THEN YOU AS A COMMISSIONER AND I'M SPEAKING GENERALLY , ANY OF US HAVE THE DISCRETION AT THAT POINT TO ADJUST THE REMEDY, TO EXERCISE , TO ENGAGE IN MERCY. THE RANGE OF COMPROMISE AVAILABLE IF YOU BELIEVE A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED IS QUITE LARGE AND I THINK THERE WERE MORE CLEAR VIOLATIONS IN 2008 AND MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE CONVERSATIONS. IF CONVERSELY YOU DO NOT BELIEVE A VIOLATION OCCURRED , TO TRADE ARE VOTES AS PART OF A COMPROMISE WOULD BE DEEPLY UNETHICAL AND A VIOLATION OF OUR OATH. I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO GET BACK TO A PLACE WHERE THERE'S MORE CONSENSUS BUT I THINK THE LACK OF CONSENSUS STEMS NOT FROM THE PERSONAL ON THE COMMISSION BUT FUN DIMENSIONAL CHANGES IN THE GOVERNING AGENCY WHICH WE DO NOT CONTROL AND THE FACT, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, IF I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE GROUNDS UNDER THE LAW TO MOVE FORWARD, I DO NOT CONSIDER MYSELF AT LIBERTY TO COMPROMISE ON THAT FINDING. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FAIRLY OBVIOUS AND FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS THAT DOES NOT KEEP WITH OUR TRADITIONS OF THE COUNTRY. WITH THOSE BRIEF COMMENTS I WOULD BE CURIOUS OF ANYONE ELSE'S THOUGHTS. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU VICE CHAIR. LET ME ASK, ARE THERE ANY DESIRES TO JOIN INTO THIS DISCUSSION? THANK YOU. I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF. I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE PROPOSAL AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE A FEW POINTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE VICE CHAIR BUT I THINK THEY ARE WORTHY OF EMPHASIS AND WORTHY OF REPEATING ABOUT WHY I THINK THIS PROPOSAL IS IMPORTANT AND WHY I DON'T AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB'S OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL AND I THINK SOME OF THEM ARE BASED ON INCORRECT UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE LAW IN OUR PRACTICE AND ALSO WITH SOME OF THE RISKS ARE IF WE DON'T ADOPT THIS POLICY AND CONTINUE WITH A PRACTICE OR POSSIBILITY OF HAVING ENCLOSED FILES THAT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS. I THINK THIS POLICY IS CRITICAL FOR SEVERAL REASONS. THE FIRST IS, IT ACKNOWLEDGES THE REALITY OF THE ACTION OF CLOSING THE FILE. IS A MINISTERIAL ACT. IT IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION ON THE MERITS OF AN UNDERLYING MATTER . IT'S AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OUR DELIBERATION ON THE MATTER, CONGRESS SAID WE NEED FOUR VOTES TO PROCEED ON A CASE AND IF WE FAIL TO GET FOUR VOTES THAT MEANS WE FAILED TO PROCEED WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CASE IS OVER. WE SHOULD LET THE PUBLIC AND THE RESPONDENTS AND THE COMPLAINANT KNOW THAT. I THINK THIS PROPOSAL WOULD REMOVE THE PERVERSE INCENTIVE TO DECEIVE, MISLEAD AND HIDE INFORMATION FROM THE PARTIES AND SUBSEQUENTLY FROM FEDERAL COURTS IF HYPOTHETICALLY A BLOCK OF COMMISSIONERS WERE STRATEGICALLY VOTING TO REFUSE TO CLOSE FILES THAT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED. IT MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO OUTSIDE LITIGATION. I DON'T THINK IT PREJUDICE US TO ADOPT THESE POLICIES IF THERE IS DESIRE AMONG COMMISSIONERS TO CONTINUE A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS BECAUSE AS THE POLICY CONTEMPLATES , THE CASE CAN BE LEFT OPEN IF FOR COMMISSIONERS FEEL LIKE THERE IS SOMETHING LEFT TO DISCUSS OR TO BE DECIDED OR IF THERE IS ROOM FOR A CONSENSUS. BECAUSE IT TAKES FOR COMMISSIONERS TO REACH ANY MERIT DECISION IT MAKES SENSE THAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR COMMISSIONERS TO CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION. IF THREE HAVE DECIDED AND THEY MADE UP THEIR MIND THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO DO THAN IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO KEEP THE FILE OPEN INDEFINITELY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL NOT BE A MERIT DECISION ON THAT. THAT BRINGS ME TO MY SECOND POINT. AT THIS MOMENT I REALLY CANNOT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY ANY COMMISSIONER WOULD OPPOSE THIS POLICY WITH RESPECT TO COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB UNLESS IT WAS A DESIRE TO ENGAGE IN GAMESMANSHIP AND PROCEDURAL HIJINKS TO HAVE THIS COMMISSION HIDE CASES BEING ADJUDICATED. IT'S NO ANSWER THAT WE NEED TIME FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. THIS POLICY ADDRESSES THAT. IT IS NOT IN MY OPINION A FAIR REASON TO VOTE AGAINST ITS. I THINK ANYONE WATCHING THIS THING THIS POLICY FAIL , I THINK THEY WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT IT IS BECAUSE OF A DESIRE TO KEEP THESE CASES CLOSED INDEFINITELY AND TO HIDE OUR DELIBERATION AND THE OUTCOMES FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND TO KEEP PEOPLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE LIMBO AND KEEP FEDERAL COURTS IN THE DARK. I ALSO DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT TO SAY THIS POLICY WOULD BE ILLEGAL. AS I SAID EARLIER, CLOSING THE FILE IS A MINISTERIAL ACT. I HAVE TO DISAGREE , VOTING TO CLOSE THE FILE IS NOT A VOTE TO DISMISS, VOTING TO DISMISS IS A VOTE TO DISMISS. VOTING TO CLOSE THE FILE IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE HAVE ADJUDICATED THE CASE AND IT'S OVER TO THAT POINT AS EVIDENCE OF THE FACT WE HAVE CLOSED FILES TOWARDS POSSIBLE TO CLOSE FILES WITH FEWER THAN FOUR VOTES. THAT IS EVIDENCE THAT IT IS NOT A SUBSTANTIVE ACTION UNDER THE STATUTE. IT'S SIMPLY WRONG TO SAY THAT CLOSING THE FILE AS A SUBUNIT OF ACTION UNDER THE STATUTE. IS INCORRECT. THIS GETS MY THIRD POINT. I THINK THIS MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT. IF THE COMMISSION GETS INTO A SITUATION WHERE A BLOCK OF COMMISSIONERS ARE STRATEGICALLY REFUSING TO CLOSE CASE FILES THAT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AND WE HAVE RESPONDENTS OUT THERE THAT ARE LEFT IN THE DARK ABOUT THE STATUS OF THIS CASES, THE COMMISSIONS AND THOSE RESPONDENTS , GET EMBROILED IN LITIGATION OVER THOSE CASES. THEY HAVE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR THE AGENCY REFUSES. I THINK THAT WOULD LEAD THIS AGENCY DOWN A DARK ROAD. IT IS NOT A STATUS QUO OR A CENTER THAT CAN HOLD BOTH WITHIN THE AGENCY AND OUTSIDE OF IT. I THINK AMONG OTHER THINGS WITHIN THE COMMISSION , I THINK WE WOULD BECOME INCREASINGLY LIABLE TO LITIGATION FROM RESPONDENTS WHOSE CASES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC THEIR DRAGGED INTO LITIGATION OVER THE FCC'S FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR CASES AND WHEN THE RESPONDENTS ARE SUBJECT TO LITIGATION. SOME OF THOSE RESPONDENTS MIGHT BEGIN TO WRITE TO US TO WAIVE THEIR CONFIDENTIALITY AND ASK FOR THE CASE FILES. SOME OF THOSE RESPONDENTS MIGHT SEEK DISCOVERY AGAINST TO THE COMMISSION TO GET THEIR CASE FILES. SOME RESPONDED MIGHT EVEN GET THE IDEA TO SUE THE FEC UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT ARGUING THAT OUR REFUSAL TO CLOSE THE FILE IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. IF THE COMMISSION WERE ABLE TO APPEAR AND DEFEND ITSELF IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT WE WOULD SAY OR HOW WE WOULD DEFEND OUR REFUSAL TO CLOSE THE FILE. I REALLY WANT TO AVOID THAT SITUATION. I HOPE WE CAN ADOPT A POLICY LIKE THIS WHERE WE CAN START TO ADJUDICATE THESE FILES AND ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE ADJUDICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE I THINK THAT REPRESENTS THE REALITY OF WHAT WE ARE DOING. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS POLICY AND I HOPE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WILL AS WELL. BEFORE I TURN TO YOU COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB LET ME MAKE SURE I'VE MADE THE OFFER TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS I HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN THE DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER WALBERG, COMMISSIONER TRAINER? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I RECOGNIZE. COMMISSIONER WALTHER? I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WAS ABLE TO BE HEARD OR NOT. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT SUPPORT FOR COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB'S APPROACH . I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ISSUE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE OUR UPS AND DOWNS IN SOME WAYS BUT BEING A DAY OUT, WE GET THE JOB DONE , IS NOT ALWAYS PRETTY BUT CONGRESS MADE A DECISION TO MAKE US, EVEN THOUGH IF WE COULD DECIDE SOMETHING WITH A CLEAR MAJORITY BUT WILL ME ARE SET UP IN THIS WAY, THE PARTIES ARE FORCED TO COLLABORATE WITH EACH OTHER IN CONNECTICUT WITH EACH OTHER AND IF IT'S POSITIVE TO DO THAT, MAKE A LOT OF DECISIONS BY THINKING THROUGH THINGS AND MAYBE NARROWING THE ISSUE TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN FIND AN AGREEMENT, I THINK THIS IS ALL TO THE BETTER. IT'S REALLY VERY FRUSTRATING, VERY FRUSTRATING SOMETIMES TO SEE THOSE THAT MIGHT DISAGREE BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS THERE. A DISAGREEMENT OR LOPSIDED VIEW , YOU COME TOGETHER AND TRY TO MAKE THE BEST YOU CAN OF ALL OF THE ISSUES. SOMETIMES WE DO A GREAT JOB AND SOMETIMES IT'S NOT SO GREAT. THE WAY TO PROCEED IS NOT PERFECT BUT IN A CASE LIKE THIS, I THINK IF WE WERE TO WHAT I PERCEIVED TO BE MORE OF A POLITICAL THING TO DO OTHERWISE. I THINK WE ARE IN A TIME RIGHT NOW WHERE WE GO AHEAD, THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO I CAN THINK OF SOME THAT MIGHT WORK FOR POSSIBLE APPROACHES BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, I DON'T THINK IT BEHOOVES US TO CREATE A SITUATION BY CHANGING IT AND THE SITUATION BEING TALKED ABOUT HERE WAY DON'T CLOSE THE FILE THAT SIT THERE FOREVER, THAT'S FINE BUT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD PREVAIL AND I'M NOT SURE, JUST LEAVING IT WHERE IT IS RATHER THAN TRYING TO GET, IT DOESN'T GET THE JOB DONE IF WE CAN'T MOVE FURTHER. I'M NOT SURE WE WILL IMPROVE ON OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE IF THEY FLIP AND SAY NOW THE SITE IS ALWAYS GOING TO PREVAIL IN THIS BECAUSE THERE WAS A VOTE TO DISMISS BUT NOT ABLE TO CLOSE THE FILE. I WILL CONTINUE MY SUPPORT FOR THAT POSITION, SAYING, THERE MAY BE SOME WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN MODERATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT. THINK AT THIS POINT, IT'S NOT PRETTY BUT IT'S MORE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT CONGRESS WANTED TO MAKE A NEW KIND OF 50-50 THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE WAY YOU GET DONE IN THE ORIGINAL PART OF THE PROCEEDING. THAT'S MY THINKING AT THIS POINT. NOT TO SAY WE CAN TALK FURTHER ABOUT HOW TO UNPLUG IT ON OCCASION BUT UNTIL HE CAN DO THAT, I LIKE THE STATUS QUO. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. LET ME CHECK WITH MY COLLEAGUES, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO JOIN? IF I MAY SHARE A FEW WORDS THEN I WILL TURN IT BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER JAMES TRAINOR TWO. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE STATEMENT OF POLICY. I BELIEVE THE INTENTION OF THE STATUTE IS TO WORK IN A BIPARTISAN NATURE FOR THIS ACTION AS WELL AND DO NOT CONSIDER IT A MINISTERIAL ACTION. THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN QUOTING FROM THE COMMENT RECEIVED TODAY THAT THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, WANT TO ASK DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR DO WE WANT TO BRING THE COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED INTO THE DISCUSSION THAT WE ARE HAVING TODAY? I FELT THAT, WE RECEIVED WAS VERY ON POINT AND IT ADDRESSED A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE OF HOW THE STATEMENT OF POLICY COULD CHANGE SOMETHING TO AN AFFIRMATIVE AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE FOUR VOTES. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE INTENTION OF THE STATUTE IN THIS AGENCY IS TO WORK TOGETHER ACROSS THE BOARD TO FIND COMPROMISE AND HAVING THE SHORT PERIOD OF TIME BEING A COMMISSIONER IT'S NOT ALWAYS GOING TO HAPPEN BUT I DO SEE DILIGENT EFFORTS ACROSS ALL SIDES TO TRY TO FIND THAT WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE I THINK IT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN IN THIS INSTANCE AS WELL. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID BUT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB AND COMMISSIONER WALTHER BUT I DO SEE THERE IS CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND I AM OPEN TO HAVING THAT WITH THE VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER COOKSEY . COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN IN? I DON'T WANT TO PROLONG THIS BECAUSE I CAN COUNT. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COOKSEY THAT THE CLOSE THE FILE THAT IS MINISTERIAL. THE STATUTE PLAINLY CONTEMPLATES THAT DISMISSALS WILL BE BY VOTES, IT SPEAKS ABOUT BOATS TO DISMISS AND THE STATUE AND AT A MINIMUM , THOSE DECISIONS HAVE TO BE BY MAJORITY VOTE. NOT ON A SPLIT VOTE TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE THAT WAS NOT ULTIMATELY DISMISSED ON A VOTE TO CLOSE THE FILE. SOMETIMES WE HAVE A FORMAL DISMISSAL MOTION AND THEN A VOTE BUT THE CLOSE THE FILE IS NOT MINISTERIAL AND WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR DISMISSING A CASE. ALLOWS FOR SOMEONE TO SUE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND THERE IS A 60 DAY CLOCK THAT STARTS RUNNING FROM THE TIME WE DISMISS THE CASE. WE HAVE HAD CASES WHERE I HAVE SAID, WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE VOTES ON IT AND THEN CLOSED THE FILE AT A LATER POINT IN THAT 60 DAY CLOCK HAS NEVER STARTED TO RUN INTO ACTUALLY CLOSE THE FILE. THAT IS THE TRIGGER FOR DISMISSAL. I THINK MY COLLEAGUES POSITION IS PRETTY CLEAR WHEN THEY SAY THEY'VE MADE UP THEIR MIND, THE CASE IS ADJUDICATED, OUR VOTES DON'T MATTER. THEY HAVE DECIDED WE ARE DONE SO APPARENTLY THERE IS A BIG DEBATE AROUND WASHINGTON AS TO WHAT IS THE IDEAL NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS PICK MY COLLEAGUES SEEM TO THINK THE IDEAL NUMBER IS THREE, ALL REPUBLICAN. THE REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONERS GET TO CONTROL THE OUTCOME AND THERE MIGHT BE THREE OTHER CHAIRS AT THE TABLE BUT WE WOULD NOT HAVE FULL RIGHTS BECAUSE ONCE THEY'VE DECIDED WHAT TO DO WITH THE CASE, IT IS OVER. UNDER THIS POLICY FOR EXAMPLE, I REPUBLICAN CHAIR COULD SET UP AN EXECUTIVE AGENDA AND JUST STACK DOZENS OF CASES . RIGHT NOW WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF CASES BUT STUCK ONE CASE AFTER A NUMBER AND RECOGNIZE A COLLEAGUE FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS BUT IT WOULD FAIL BUT IT WOULD NOT MATTER BECAUSE THEY WOULD ALL BE DISMISSED ANYWAY AND WE CAN HAVE MOTION TO DISMISS, SHE FAILS, MOVE ON. MAGICALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY ON THIS POLICY, ALL OF THESE CASES WOULD BE DISMISSED, THEY WOULD BE CLOSED AND THEY WOULD BE DONE. THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WE COULD DO TO STOP THAT UNDER THIS POLICY. AS I HAVE SAID, IT WOULD JUST BE GIVING UP THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE A MORE PRO-ENFORCEMENT POINT OF VIEW , WE CAN ALL DISAGREE ON AND WE WILL AND WE HAVE AND WE WILL AGAIN ON THE MEANING OF VARIOUS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. WE ARE NOT ALONE AND THAT. LAWYERS ALL OVER TOWN AND ALL OVER THE COUNTRY DISAGREE ON THE MEANINGS OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. AT THE END OF THE DAY WE GET TO DECIDE TOGETHER. I AM NOT GOING TO CEDE MY AUTHORITY AS WOULD HAPPEN UNDER THIS POLICY. >> I WILL HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR A YEAR AND AS COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB SAID UNTIL 2018 THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE. IN MY TIME ON THE COMMISSION WHERE WE'VE HAD THIS SPLIT BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS AND THIS WILLINGNESS TO WORK TO COME TO SOME RESOLUTION, I HAVE YET TO WANTS HAVE ANYONE REACH OUT TO CHANGE MY MIND WITH REGARD TO A PHYSICIAN I HAVE TAKEN WHERE WE HAVE HAD A 3-3 SPLIT IN A PARTICULAR CASE. I HAVE MYSELF REACHED OUT TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO TRY TO GET THEM TO MOVE TOWARDS MY POSITION IN A PARTICULAR MATTER AND WHAT I FIND MOST DISTURBING ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD CONTINUE TO WORK ON THESE CASES IS THAT FOR MY ALMOST ENTIRE YEAR WE'VE BEEN HERE I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE OF THESE CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN INITIAL SPLIT AND THEN A REFUSAL TO CLOSE THE FILE PUT BACK ON AN AGENDA FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER. IT HAS NOT HAPPENED ONE TIME. AND IT GETS VERY DISINGENUOUS TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO WORK TOWARDS COMPROMISE AND THEN NOT SEE THE SAME MATTERS AGAIN AND IN FACT , I HAVE NO ONE REACH OUT TO YOU AND SAY YOU NEED TO MOVE TOWARDS MY POSITION WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO GET TO A COMPROMISED POSITION. I THINK IT'S VERY DISINGENUOUS AND MISLEADING TO THE PUBLIC TO SAY THESE THINGS ARE GOING ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND WE ARE TRYING TO GET SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE. WHAT IT IS, EACH SITE APPEARS TO HAVE DUG IN AND WE ARE JUST GOING TO CONTINUE WITH A RULE CHANGE THAT TOOK PLACE OR A PROCEDURAL CHANGE THAT TOOK PLACE BY A VOTE OF A BLOCK OF COMMISSIONERS TO KEEP THESE FILES , THESE ZOMBIE FILES I CONTINUE TO HANG AROUND THE COMMISSION FOR YEARS ON END . IN FACT, I WOULD VENTURE TO GUESS THERE ARE PROBABLY CASES WHERE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS EVEN EXPIRED OR VOTES HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THEY HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN PUT BACK ON THE AGENDA TO BE CONSIDERED. CLEARLY, I THINK THIS IS A PROCEDURE WE NEED TO HAVE IN PLACE TO AVOID THE PERCEPTION THAT THE COMMISSION IS NOT TAKING ACTION. I THINK IT IS ABSOLUTELY OF WARRANT THAT WE REFUSE TO ALLOW THE JUDICIARY TO HAVE ACCESS TO THESE FILES AND ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION WHEN THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN DEFINITIVE ACTION AND BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THEIR POSITION IS AND THE JUDICIARY COULD BENEFIT FROM BOTH SIDES HAVING GIVEN THEIR INFORMATION TO THE COURTS IN THESE DELAY SUITS. I ALSO FIND IT ODD THAT THE COMMENTERS THAT THE CHAIR BROUGHT UP ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMMISSION BEING ABLE TO DO ITS JOB AND YET THERE SOME OF THE FIRST PEOPLE TO RUN TO THE COURTHOUSE WHEN WE DO NOT GET TO A CASE IN THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF TIME. THIS PROCEDURE WOULD MAKE THAT TIMEFRAME BE MUCH QUICKER AND WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE AN ADJUDICATION OF CASES THAT THEY FILE , THEY COULD THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THE LAW AS OPPOSED TO PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OR WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION HAD DELAYED THEIR ACTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MANAGER? YES MY SHARE. JUST A QUICK THOUGHT. COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB SPOKE IN STRONG TERMS ABOUT HER AUTHORITY AS A COMMISSIONER AND THE SEATING OF POWER THAT WOULD GO ON, I THINK THAT IS WRONG AS A FACTUAL MATTER FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB'S TIME HERE, THIS WAS RECOGNIZED AND IT WAS A PRACTICE. THIS IS A REQUEST TO RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO AS IT WAS PRACTICED AT LEAST UP UNTIL 2018 BY MY RECORDS. I THINK SUGGESTING THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO UNDO ANY OF THE CENTURY-OLD STATUTE IS HEATED RHETORIC. I'M NOT SURE IT QUITE MATCHES UP WITH THE FACTS. ONE STATEMENT OF THIS GENERAL LEGAL THEORY I GUESS, IT IS NOT , I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS SO CURIOUS TUPLE THAT WHEN THERE IS A SPLIT, NOT A MAJORITY THAT THE PRESUMPTION IS YOU DO NOT ENFORCE. THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FUNDAMENTAL ON HOW WE ADJUDICATE IN THIS COUNTRY. NOT JUST THIS COUNTRY, THE ENTIRE LEGAL HISTORY OF ANY SYSTEM I HAVE FAMILIARITY WITH. THE PRESUMPTION IS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE AND IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT. AS YOU OVERCOME THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BEAR A BURDEN AND GET TO A MAJORITY. I THINK IT'S VERY ODD TO A SUIT HERE SUCH HEATED RHETORIC AROUND THE BASIC CONCEPT WHERE A PARTY IS EVENLY DIVIDED. IF YOU DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH ENFORCEMENT, IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT, IF LIES TO A LOT OF AGENCIES AND I THINK IT IS PART OF WHY I AM CONFUSED BY THE OPPOSITION. I DON'T THINK RECOGNIZING THEN THE COMMISSION CAMP, IT CANNOT BE ENFORCED ANYWHERE AND THAT THAT IS WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. TAKE SOME ISSUE WITH THE STRENGTH OF HER RHETORIC GIVEN THERE IS A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF DUE PROCESS AT STAKE HERE. I HOPE WE CAN DIAL THAT BACK AND HOPE THIS DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VICE CHAIR. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? MANAGER. YES. I MOVE THE ADOPTION OF AGENDA DOCUMENT NUMBER 21-21 - A. IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? SEEING NAN, I WILL CALL THE QUESTION, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE AND ALL OPPOSED PLEASE SAY NO. THE VOTE FAILS WITH THREE VOTING IN FAVOR ENTRY VOTING AGAINST. THANK YOU. MADAM SECRETARY, THAT MOTION FAILS, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE DRAFT NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY , 2021 CANDIDATE SALARIES. WE HAVE HAD KEVIN PAULSEN AND AMY ROTHSTEIN HERE TO DISCUSS THE MATTER. GIVE ME A THUMBS UP WHEN YOU ARE READY TO PROCEED. FEEL FREE TO PROCEED. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE AGENDA DOCUMENT 21 - 22 A . THE PETITION ASKS THE COMMISSION TO AMEND ITS REGULATIONS REGARDING CANDIDATE SALARIES AND CAMPAIGN FUNDS. IF APPROVED THE DRAFT WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER AND THE COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PETITION FOR A PERIOD OF 60 DAYS. THANK YOU AND I AM HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BUT I THINK THIS IS AN INTERESTING PETITION AND IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO OPEN THE DOOR TO MORE PEOPLE OF DIVERSE MEANS AND DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND IF THAT WERE THE RESULTS, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR OUR COUNTRY. I WOULD BE REALLY INTERESTED AND I HOPE PEOPLE WOULD COMMENT. IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE RULEMAKING, THE COMMENTS COULD HELP TO INFORM HOW WE FRAME THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING. THIS IS JUST A POSITION THAT GOES UP FOR, AND THEN WE DECIDE IF WE OPEN UP RULEMAKING OR NOT. SOME QUESTIONS I MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN, IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD, WOULD IT BE ADVISABLE TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE TO MAKE SURE THE DINNERS UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEIR MONEY WAS GOING FOR. DOES OPPOSE A SMALL RISK OF SCAMMERS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THESE KINDS OF POLICIES TO SET UP SO CAMPAIGNS TO RAISE MONEY AND PAY THEMSELVES A SALARY. OF THE THINGS WE CAN DO TO PREVENT ITS. IS AT RISK COUNTERACTED BY THE BENEFITS THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY ALLOWING MORE PEOPLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE. THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO BUY HEALTHCARE, THAT IS ONE THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I APPRECIATE THAT THE PETITIONER SENDS US THIS INTERESTING PETITION AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE COMMENTS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB , ANY FURTHER? RUNNING FOR OFFICE IS A FULL-TIME JOB AND WHEN YOU ARE NOT IN A WEALTHY POSITION AND YOU ARE STRUGGLING TO HAVE JUST THE DAILY LIFE EXPENSES, HEALTHCARE AND TRYING TO MAKE COMPETITIVE RATES, I THINK IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH UNDER REPRESENTATIVE INDIVIDUALS IN THIS COUNTRY AND GET A RACE INSIDE OF OUR HALLS THIS COUNTRY AND IT MIGHT NOT BE A TYPICAL. YOU HAVE HUSBANDS TAKING CARE OF CHILDREN AND MINORITIES THAT CANNOT RUN FOR WITH HER TAKE CARE OF THE CHILD. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS CAN BE PART OF THIS POLITICAL PROCESS. I THINK IT WILL BE SOME INTERESTING ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED FOR THERE IS A CONCERN THAT WILL HAVE AGAIN . IT IS SUGGESTING SIX MONTHS OF MINIMUM. I AM EXCITED TO SEE WHAT COMMENTS CAN RAISE AND THE POTENTIAL THAT WE CAN OPEN THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR A GREATER EXPANSION I THINK IT'S A VERY INTERESTING PETITION FOR I AM HAPPY TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ON THIS. >> MANAGER? COMMISSIONER COOKSEY . I AM HAPPY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT AS IT IS NOT A DECISION ON THE MERITS, JUST TO SEE WHAT THE PUBLIC VIEW IS ON THESE ISSUES, I SHARE SOME OF COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB'S CONCERNS , CONCERNS ABOUT RUNNING FOR POLITICAL OFFICE BEING A MONEYMAKING ENTERPRISE FOR THE CANDIDATES. PEOPLE ARE MAKING MORE MONEY THAN THEY PREVIOUSLY WERE AND I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING PEOPLE'S VIEWS ON WHETHER THE PROVISION FOR HEALTHCARE IS NECESSARY GIVEN THAT YOU CAN PURCHASE HEALTHCARE WITH THE SALARY YOU ARE PAYING YOURSELF AS A CANDIDATE. OF COURSE ANY INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE ACCOUNTABILITY AND AVOIDING WHAT I WILL GENERALLY CALL WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE. THAT IS A GOOD GOVERNMENT TERM FOR MAKING SURE THE PROVISIONS ARE BEING RUN THE RIGHT WAY. I AM HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE COMMENTS THAT COME IN. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. ANYTHING FURTHER? IS THERE EMOTION? A MOTION. MADAM CHAIR? YES. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THE APPROVAL OF THE DOCUMENT. WE NEED A FORMAL INVOCATION OF WORDS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO. I AGREE . I DON'T THINK THAT MUCH FORMALITY NEEDS TO BE HAD IN THIS ONE. WE HAVE THE SHAKING OF THE HEAD FROM OUR GENERAL COUNSEL SO I APPRECIATE THAT. WITH THAT MOTION WE HAVE FROM THE VICE CHAIR TO APPROVE THE DOCUMENT, I ASK IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION? SEEING NO INTEREST I WILL CALL THE QUESTION, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE . THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSES 6-0. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE PROPOSED COMMISSION ACTION TO ADDRESS SCAM PACS AND WE HAVE GREG SCOTT, DEBBIE CHACONA , RYAN LANZ AND PAUL CLARK. FEEL FREE TO START. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS, THE MEMORANDUM BEFORE YOU PROVIDES TO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORKING GROUP COMPRISED OF STAFF FROM SEVERAL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE AGENCY. IT AIMS TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC OUTREACH AND TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON HOW POLITICAL COMMITTEES ARE SPENDING THEIR FUNDS. THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION PROPOSES SEVERAL UPSTATE UPDATES TO THE WEBSITE. IT WOULD HELP THE PUBLIC IDENTIFY COMMITTEES THAT HAVE RAISED LARGE SUMS OF MONEY BUT HAVE SPENT LITTLE OF THAT MONEY ON DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT . THE PROPOSED UPDATES AIM TO IMPROVE HEALTH EXISTING DATA IS DISPLAYED SO POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTORS CAN BE BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE POLITICAL COMMITTEES THEY MAY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TWO. THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION PROPOSES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHORT VIDEO TO BE POSTED ON THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL WHICH WOULD DEMONSTRATE HOW TO NAVIGATE THE FEC WEBSITE IN ORDER TO REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING THE PROPOSED WEBSITE CHANGES HOW TO ISOLATE A COMMITTEE SPENDING ON DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT AND HOW TO COMPARE COMMITTEE SPENDING TO ITS SPENDING ON OTHER EXPENSES. I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO RYAN LANZ FROM THE REPORTS ANALYSIS DIVISION AND PAUL CLARK FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER WHO WILL PROVIDE VISUALS AND AN EXPEDITION OF THE PROPOSED WEBSITE UPDATES. GOOD MORNING. I WILL WALK THROUGH A SERIES OF CHANGES FOR THE FEC WEBSITE AND I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN TO SHOW MOCKUPS OF THE CHANGES. I JUST WANT TO CHECK AND MAKE SURE, CAN PEOPLE SEE MY SCREEN CORRECTLY? PERFECT. THE FIRST PROPOSAL DISPLAYING POLITICAL COMMITTEES AGGREGATED DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT ACTIVITY PICKED THIS WOULD BE DISPLAYED ON THE PROFILE PAGE AND A NEW CONE COULD BE ADDED NEXT TO THE TOTALS THAT PROVIDED FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR THE COMMITTEE PICK THE NEW CONE WOULD SHOW A PERCENTAGE THAT EACH FIGURE REPRESENTS AS PART OF THEIR OVERALL SPENDING. ADDITIONALLY THE LINES THAT REPRESENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL COMMITTEES AND CANDIDATES, INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND COORDINATED PARTY EXPENDITURES COULD BE LUMPED TOGETHER TITLED DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT WHICH COULD SHOW THE COMBINED PERCENTAGE OF DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE. THE SECOND PROPOSAL, DISPLAYING THIS WOULD SHOW A LIST OF VENDORS USED BY THE COMMITTEE, A NEW COLUMN WOULD BE ADDED THAT SHOWS THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS EACH VENDOR RECEIVED FROM THE COMMITTEE. THE THIRD PROPOSAL WOULD BE ADDING A NEW SEARCH PARAMETER FOR FILTERING DATA. THIS PROPOSAL HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED ON THE COMMISSION WEBSITE. THIS SPECIFICALLY ALLOW SOMEONE TO FILTER COMMITTEE ACTIVITY BY ONE OR MORE SPECIFIC LINE NUMBERS. THIS HELP SHOWS THE DISBURSEMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE FOR DIRECT CANDIDATES BUT CAN BE USED FOR OTHER LINE NUMBERS AS WELL. THE FOURTH PROPOSAL, ADDING NEW SEARCH PARAMETERS TO THE COMMUNITY SEARCH PAGE, UNDER THIS PROPOSAL NEW SEARCH PARAMETERS WOULD BE ADDED TO THE COMMUNITY SEARCH PAGE. USER WOULD BE ABLE TO SEARCH FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT AND PLUG IN A PERCENTAGE THAT ACTIVITY REPRESENTS FOR COMMITTEES AND THE WEBSITE WOULD RETURN A LIST OF COMMITTEES THAT MEET THAT CRITERIA. THEY COULD THEN PULL A LIST OF COMMITTEES WITH HIGH OR LOW PERCENTAGE OF DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT. AND THEN THEY FIT PROPOSAL WOULD BE AMENDING COLUMN HEADERS ON THE POLITICAL COMMITTEES SEARCH PAGE. UNDER THIS PROPOSAL WE WOULD ADD LANGUAGE TO THE COMMITTEE SEARCH PAGE 2 IDENTIFY THOSE COMMITTEES THAT ARE AUTHORIZED BY CANADA AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY A CANDIDATE. THIS WOULD HELP SOMEONE THAT MAY NOT BE AS FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGAL TERMS SUCH AS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. NOW I WILL TURN IT OVER TO PAUL CLARK FOR THE FINAL PROPOSAL. IN MOURNING. THE PRESENTATION ABOUT RECOMMENDATION NUMBER SIX IS SHORT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE WEBSITE TEAM DISCUSSED TWO OPTIONS. THE TABULAR OPTION CAN DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT. IT WOULD BE SORTABLE ALLOWING USERS TO USE THE DATA IN A WAY THAT'S MOST USEFUL TO THEM. THE GRAPHICAL OPTION WOULD ALLOW WEBSITE USERS TO SELECT TO COMMITTEES, WANTS SELECTED, THE WEBSITE WOULD DISPLAY EACH COMMITTEE ON A SCATTERPLOT. THE MOCKUP THAT WE'VE DISPLAYED OR PRESENTED ARE FOR STUDENT PURPOSES ONLY AND IF WE CAN GET APPROVAL FOR ONE OR SEVERAL OF THESE OPTIONS WHERE WE GO THROUGH OUR NORMAL WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, DESIGN AND TESTING AND I WILL HAND IT BACK TO DEBBIE. >> THANK YOU PAUL AND RAN FOR THAT PRESENTATION BRICK I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO GREG SCOTT, THE ASSISTANT STAFF DIRECTOR , HE WILL SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. AS DEBBIE MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET THE LAST ELEMENT OF THIS PROPOSAL INVOLVES THE EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH FRICK THE GOAL OF THIS EFFORT WOULD BE TO HELP POTENTIAL EACH CONTRIBUTORS USE THE TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE WHEN THEY ARE DECIDING WHETHER TO CONTRIBUTE TO A POLITICAL COMMITTEE . SPECIFICALLY WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE CREATING AN INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO WHERE WE DEMONSTRATE HOW TO NAVIGATE SOME OF THE DATA AND THAT VIDEO WOULD BE POSTED ON THE AGENCY'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND ON THE COMMISSION'S WEBSITE THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSIONER APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATIONS SET FORTH IN THE AGENDA DOCUMENTS TO APPROVE TRANSPARENCY AND HAVE THE PUBLIC MAKE . THANK YOU AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE TEAM. I THINK WHAT HIT A STRIKING PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE CHF 15 ARE HARMFUL. ONE OF THE FIRST CASES THAT I HAD AS A STAFF ATTORNEY IN 2008 TURNED OUT TO BE A SCAM PA-C. AT THE TIME WE DO NOT HAVE THE LANGUAGE FOR EXPERT IT WAS NOT THAT LONG AGO, WE JUST HAD NOT DEVELOPED ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WHAT I WAS TAKEN ABACK BY IS THAT THIS WAS A MINORITY COMMITTEE IN A DISTRICT , THAT IS NOT A WELL-KNOWN PUBLIC DISTRICT. THIS CANDIDATE RECEIVED ALMOST $1 MILLION. I WAS STRUCK BY THAT BECAUSE I RATED THIS SESSION HOW CAN THAT CANDIDATE HAVE THAT, WHEN I DUG IN AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCAM PACS. I WAS AMAZED THAT THERE WAS COUNSELING, CONSULTING AND FUNDRAISING AND VERY SOPHISTICATED THINGS FOR A CAMPAIGN THAT WAS EXTREMELY UNSOPHISTICATED. WHEN I DUG IN FURTHER, HOW MUCH MONEY ACTUALLY WENT TO CANDIDATE SUPPORT WAS NOWHERE NEAR ANYTHING THAT WOULD'VE MADE A SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE. I WONDER IF WHEN THEY SET THEMSELVES UP THE NOT RECEIVING MONEY, I AM THE PERSON THAT ASKED FOR THIS DOCUMENT TO GO BLUE BECAUSE I SEE THIS AS AN ISSUE . THE FBI PUBLISHED A REPORT IN ONE OF THE THINGS WE SAID WAS WE NEED TO WORK ON THE FRONT END AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE CHANNEL AND FRICK I SEE THESE PROPOSALS AS A WAY TO HELP INTRUDERS HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING HOW THE FUNDS ARE BEING USED LOW DOLLAR HIGH DOLLAR YOU WILL SUPPORT THE CANDIDATE AND CAUSES YOU BELIEVE IN COTTON OUTLINING SOMEBODY ELSE'S POCKET FOR PROFITS. THAT MIGHT NOT BE A VERY SOPHISTICATED WAY TO SAY IT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST START THE DISCUSSION FOR THIS I AM ALSO NOT ASKING FOR A VOTE TODAY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE IS ADDITIONAL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE TEAM IF THEY COULD. THIS WOULD GO DIRECTLY TO YOU, HAD A REAGENT FRIENDS RIGHT CANDIDATES FOR AS THE APPROPRIATE INDICATOR FOR PACS ACTIVITY . ARE WE GOING TO LOOK AT ANY OTHER METRICS? WE DETERMINE THE CATEGORIES THAT THE CANDIDATES WILL BENEFIT FROM IN TERMS OF ACTUAL SUPPORT. WE LOOKED AT THE CATEGORIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS AND INDEPENDENT MINIATURES AND COORDINATED PARTY EXPENDITURES. THAT IS HOW IT'S BEEN DEFINED ON THE ACTUAL FORMS. THERE IS A REFERENCE TO DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT IF THERE IS DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT IN THESE CATEGORIES THE SOCIETY DISCLOSE A BRICK THAT IS WHAT HE CAME UP WITH WORK THANK YOU. CLARIFY THE AUTHORIZED COMMITTEES ARE THOSE AUTHORIZED BY A CANDIDATE AND INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED. HOW EASY WOULD IT CHANGE ME TO MAKE AND CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED RELATIVELY QUICKLY? MADAM CHAIR, IT WAS JUST THE LABELS ON THE WEBSITE USERS CHANGE CAN HAPPEN FAIRLY QUICKLY. I WILL MAKE SURE I ALLOW , IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU'D LIKE TO DIRECT JUMP IN AND LET ME KNOW. >> KEVIN PAULSEN ONE IS A FAIRLY BASIC QUESTION FOR ANYONE WHO FEELS EQUIPPED TO ANSWER. DO WE HAVE ANY STATUTORY OR REGULATORY DEFINITIONS FOR WHAT A SCAM PACK IS THAT A CHAIR PER THANK YOU. MY SECOND QUESTION IS A MORE TECHNICAL QUESTION ABOUT THE CALCULATION OF DIRECT CANDIDATES FOR THIS FROM THE DOCUMENT IT SAYS DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT INCLUDES CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL CANADA CASE . DOES IS SAYING COMMITTEES WOULD NOT LET THAT MONEY BE USED IN DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT PERSONNEL IT WOULD BE FOR JUST FEDERAL CANDIDATE SUPPORT. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR QUESTIONS FROM OUR COLLEAGUES? THANK YOU. NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION BUT A COMMENT. THIS IS PART OF A LONG-STANDING PROJECT , AN AREA OF LONG-STANDING CONCERN AT THE COMMISSION. I REMEMBER HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE WORKING GROUP WITH FORMER COMMISSIONER PETERSON . THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE WHILE AGO. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF THE STAFF. WE WERE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER A WORKING GROUP THAT WENT ACROSS THE AGENCY AND DREW ON THE VARIOUS EXERCISES A LOT OF PEOPLE. THEY PUT IN A LOT OF WORK ON A PROJECT FRICK THIS IS A TIP OF THE OSPREY. HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM? HOW DO WE PROVIDE BETTER INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC SO THEY CAN MAKE BETTER CHOICES AND FUNDAMENTALLY NOT GET RIPPED OFF. I WANT TO THANK YOU MATTER SHARE FOR CONTINUING TO RAISE IT UP AND MAKE SURE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE ARE ON OUR PLATE AND WE DO NOT FORGET ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND TRY TO MAKE PROGRESS. THANK YOU. THANKS TO THE TEAM THAT COVERS ALL OF THE DIVISIONS, THEY PUT IN YEARS OF EFFORT I GREATLY APPRECIATE THEIR WORK FRICK ALREADY JUST PRINCIPLES THE DATE THAT IS MORE I WOULD LIKE THE GROUP TO PROVIDE SOME FURTHER RESEARCH I WOULD LIKE OCI OUT TO DETERMINE THE VOLUME OF WORK NEEDED . THERE IS A FOOTNOTE IN THE DOCUMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS TO MOVE FORWARD WE HAVE TO REACH OUT TO SEE A TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE COST , THE, THE TIME IS, THE IMPLEMENTATION AND HOW TO FIX THAT. CLEARLY YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER BUDGET RESTRICTIONS. I AM NOT A PART OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF THE ROUND. I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL AND THEY WILL BENEFIT EVERYBODY TO KNOW THE NUMBERS SO WE CAN HAVE SOME COMFORT AND PROCEEDING WITH THAT. I WANT TO WORK WITH THE STUFF THAT DEVELOPED MORE DETAIL IN GLASSES WE ARE CREATING A STEPPED-UP AGE. I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT THAT WAS MENTIONED BY TRIXIE WE NEED TO WORK ON SOME INTERNAL DEFINITIONS AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERATION FOR THE YOU HAVE DONE SO MUCH GREAT WORK BUT IT DOES TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL ENCOURAGEMENT FROM THE COMMISSION TO DO SO. AS I HIGHLIGHTED, THIS IS NOT AN INTENTION TO CALL THIS MATTER FOR A VOTE. I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH NEARLY ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES . THANK YOU TO THE VICE CHAIR BECAUSE WE HAVE SPOKEN AND NOT TO OBLIGATE YOU ANYWAYS WE HAVE BOTH MADE A COMMITMENT TO TO WORK ON THIS TOGETHER SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THE COMMISSIONER IS RIGHT. SHE HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTING THIS FROM THE START AND TO GIVE EVERYONE A HEADS UP, I MENTIONED THE COMMISSIONER POINTED OUT TO ME HERSELF. I DID. IT HAS ALWAYS STUCK WITH ME. THE THANK YOU TO THE STAFF I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GIVE MY COLLEAGUES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS IF YOU'D LIKE. COMMISSIONER WALKER. I THINK IT IS A FINE IDEA, HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE NEGATIVE HAPPENING AND DO WE HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ENGAGE IN THAT GIVEN THAT MOST OF THE TIME DOCUMENTS ARE PAIRED AND MAKE SENSE OF HOW MUCH . WE ARE NOT TRYING TO GET INTO THE METHODOLOGY OF WHAT THE VOTER OR CONTRIBUTOR MAY WANT FRICK IN MY VIEW, IF THE CONTRIBUTOR WANTS TO SPEND MONEY , IS A CLEAR AND YOU WATCH OVER THE DOGS. SHOULD WE BE THERE TO CHALLENGE THAT AND AT WHAT POINT DO WE START DISCLOSURE TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT HOW MUCH HAS GONE THAT IS A VERY HUGE INFORMATION AMOUNT THAT OUR AGENCY WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT CAREFULLY COST WISE. ALSO, HE MAKES HIS DECISIONS WE ARE TALKING TODAY ABOUT WHAT CATEGORIES TO USE AND PERHAPS I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH HOW THAT WOULD GO BUT WAS RESCINDED INTEREST FOR SOME OF THE FUEL IN OUR OFFICE AND SAY WE HAD A LINE. ARE WE GOING TO REPORT THAT TO SOME GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OR ARE WE GOING TO PUT UP A SIGN ON OUR WEBSITE WHAT WE DO WITH THE INFORMATION? IT APPEARS TO THE QUESTIONABLE. THANK YOU . THIS INFORMATION IS ALREADY DISCLOSED. WE ARE NOT SEEKING NEW INFORMATION, THIS IS MERELY THE WAY IT CAN BE DISPLAYED TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO THOSE CONTRIBUTORS AND CONTRIBUTORS CAN STILL CONTINUE TO GIVE THEIR MONEY IN ANY WAY THEY CHOOSE, THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THE FBI NOTICED THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN AN ARTICLE AT LEAST LAST WEEK WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE GIVING THEIR MONEY IN ONE CAPACITY BELIEVING THE ATTENTION GOES TO CANDIDATE SUPPORT AND THE MONEY WENT TO FILLING THE POCKETS AND THEN LISTENING TO HER CONSULTING PRACTICE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE BUT I BELIEVE I INTERRUPTED YOU DEBBIE CHACONA SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD PLEASE DO. I WAS JUST GOING TO ECHO WHAT YOU SAID AND CLARIFY THAT THE INFORMATION IS PULLED FROM THE FORMS, THE LINE NUMBERS THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS DISCLOSED. THERE RELATED TO CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL CANDIDATES, INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND CORRELATED EXPENDITURES. THE INTENT IS FOR THE PUBLIC TO MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATIONS BASED ON THE DATA WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR COMMITTEE. THAT IS THE EXTENT. WHAT DO WE DO IF WE SEE PROBLEMS ? WHO DECIDES WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? THE WEBSITE , THE CHANGES WOULD BE FOR THE PUBLIC. IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE REVIEW PROCESS. THE REVIEW PROCESS IS AN INTERNAL FUNCTION AND THE WEBSITE IS FOR THE PUBLIC TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE. DEFINING IT AS A PROBLEM WOULD BE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE CONTRIBUTION TO DECIDE. I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE TO AN APPOINTMENT , ADVISING DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SOME APPEARANCE OF WRONGDOING, IS THAT ANY PART OF THE THINKING IN THAT REGARD AND IF SO WHO WOULD BE THE ONES TO REGARD WHO TO WORK WITH? I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, THAT IS NOT A PART OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT IS ON THE OPEN MEETING. I APPRECIATE THOSE CONCERNS BUT IT IS NOT A PART, THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTING OF TWO THINGS, A FORWARD FACING WEBSITE HIGHLIGHTING AND AN EDUCATIONAL VIDEO THAT CAN BE PUBLISHED. I SEE. SOUNDS GOOD, THANKS. I HAVE A TECHNICAL QUESTION I GUESS FOR THE IT DEVELOPERS. WOULD WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES FOR THE TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE FILE AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO BE MANIPULATING THIS DATA AND WHAT WE WILL BE USING IT FOR? IS IT SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED TO NOTIFY THEM IN ADVANCE OF? I GUESS THAT THE TECHNICAL QUESTION? >> I'M NOT SURE I'M THE BEST PERSON TO ASK. THE CHANGE TO THE DATABASE IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT'S JUST ADDING MY NUMBERS AND DIVIDING BY ANOTHER LINE NUMBER. IF WE NEED TO NOTIFY THE FILING COMMUNITY ABOUT THESE CHANGES, THAT MAY BE A QUESTION THAT DEBBIE KNOWS BETTER OR OIC CAN BETTER ANSWER. OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD MAKE CHANGES THAT ARE NECESSARY BUT I'M NOT SURE ON THE BEST PERSON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. OKAY. I WILL JUST THROW THIS OUT FOR WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER IT. MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH USING THE DATA AND MANIPULATING THE DATA TO COME UP WITH A NUMBER ON THE WEBSITE IS THAT WE PUT OURSELVES IN THE POSITION OF PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS BASED UPON THE DATA THAT WE SELECT TO BE USED TO COME UP WITH THE NUMBER TO SAY THIS APPEARS TO BE A SCAM PACK OR IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SCAM PACK. OBVIOUSLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CATCH SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT INNOCENT OF THE ACTIVITY AND THE WHOLE CALCULATION, I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT WHAT DATA WE USE AND WE NEED TO CONTROL FOR CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT AMONGST THE DIFFERENT PACKS. THE OVERHEAD COST IN NEW YORK CITY IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OVERHEAD COST FOR ONE IN MARFA, TEXAS. THEY HAVE TO BE CONTROLLED FOR AND YOU WILL SEE A CERTAIN AMOUNT GOING TO RENT IN ONE OF THOSE THAT'S HIGHER THAN ANOTHER AND THAT WILL SKEW THE DATA. I THINK AS WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION , WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE USING THE RIGHT NUMBERS AND THAT WE HAVE APPROPRIATE CONTROLS AND DISCLAIMERS FOR THE DATA THAT WE ARE USING. WE WANT TO NOT BE IN THE POSITION OF LETTING THE WORLD KNOW, I WOULD RATHER HAVE SEVERAL SCAM PACS GO FREE THAN FOR US TO HURT THE LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF SOMEBODY WHO IS ACTUALLY WORKING TO DO REAL FIRST AMENDMENT POLITICAL SPEECH . I THINK WE ALL PROBABLY BELIEVE THAT. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO BE LOOKED AT AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE APPROPRIATE CONTROLS IN PLACE FOR THE VARIOUS DATA POINTS THAT WE WILL USE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. THOSE ARE ALL VERY VALID POINTS. WHILE WE ARE HERE AND ASKING THEM TO GO FORWARD AND LOOK FURTHER INTO THOSE QUESTIONS, THAT DIRECTLY GOES TO THE DEFINITION THAT I ASKED FOR REGARDING DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT. IF THERE IS ANOTHER METRIC. THANK YOU FOR THAT . LET ME ASK IF THERE IS ANYTHING FURTHER. IF NOT? MOISTURE? VERY BRIEFLY, I APPRECIATED THE SHOUT OUT. THIS IS YOUR DOCUMENT AND I WAS HAPPY TO LET YOU TAKE POINT AND GET THE GLORY. I AM GLAD WE ARE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION ON THESE THINGS. I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOWS THAT THIS IS A TECHNICAL AND DIFFICULT QUESTION AND AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF HOW , EVERYTHING IS SIMPLE BUT THE SIMPLEST THING IS DIFFICULT. THAT'S COME TO MIND SEVERAL TIMES SINCE I JOINED THE COMMISSION. I AM HERE MOSTLY FOR THE BRIEFING WHICH I FOUND VERY USEFUL. I DO WANT TO ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER WALTER SAID. TO AN EXTENT , THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT IS GOING ON, THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW THAT WE ARE AWARE OF THAT, IT IS SEPARATE FROM HER STATUTORY ROLE IN . I GET MIXED UP, I SEE THEM AS PARALLEL EFFORTS. I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR BEFORE WE GO. THANK YOU. I AGREE. I DO CONSIDER THEM PARALLEL EFFORTS THOUGH THE EFFORT THAT I HOPE WE CAN WORK HERE IS TO CATCH THIS AT THE START SO IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT OUR CONTRIBUTORS ARE UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THEIR MONEY GOES THEN MAYBE THEY WILL NOT GET IN THAT POSITION WHERE WE HAVE TO END UP REFERRING. I DO AGREE, THE DOJ COMPONENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS. THANK YOU AGAIN TO MR. SCOTT, MR. CLARK AND RYAN LANZ AND DEBBIE CHACONA AND I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING TIME AND EFFORTS AND WE WERE GOING TO MOVE THIS MATTER OVER TO A LATER MEETING AND CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT TURNS TO MANAGEMENT OR ADMINISTERED MATTERS , STAFF DIRECTOR ARE THERE ANY MANAGEMENT OR ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO DISCUSS TODAY? THERE ARE NO SUCH MATTERS. THE MEETING TODAY IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ EVENT CONCLUDED ]