This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on November 16, 2017. This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission. >> Good morning, everyone. This is convening on the executive session... this will convene the open meet of the Federal Election Commission for November 16, 2017. We have a couple matters on the agenda. First matter assessment of commission action on enforcement matters awaiting reason to believe consideration. Quarterly report, information that's in this particular -- >> Mr. Chairman? Excuse me. >> I believe I have to do a motion order -- adding consideration reg 2011 -- -- pursuant to 11 CFR, no public announcement possible. Agenda documents in order the commission to consider the late submission of agenda document numbers 1752A, 1752, B, 1752C, and 1753B. Thank you, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Once again, I submitted a late document which is fairly detailed concerning the progress regress that we made in terms of enforcement. I think in view of the more needy issues, I'm going to put this off to the next open session to the extent we need to comment on it and move the record to 2011-002 internet communication disclaimers. There are three motions before you today. And... they all, probably will end up pretty much in the same place by the time we get done today. All motions seek, ultimately, rule-making and the question is really, the process to take in the meantime. My motion seeks to -- I'm going to discuss briefly, for summary altogether -- seeks to have a meeting of the commission, a one-day meeting before we finalize any rule-making to take into consideration the comments that were made during the hearing, the period of time during which we got notice with respect to what to do with our rule making, to take into consideration the issues that might want to be raised by our colleagues who didn't provide comments formally, but if we can invite them to come to a hearing and give us some further views and also, since we've not had directly the ability to hear from the regulating community and especially, the people from the IT community, it gives us an opportunity to actually have a hearing to invite them specifically before we conclude the drafting of some rules. This proposes that we meet in December and have three panels. The composition of which would be agreed upon by the commission of at least four votes, to be done in a way that's bi-partisan in nature. In my motion, I mentioned the fact that we have a need to proceed at this time. Due largely to the events that have occurred on issues of money and politics. About what we're doing. In each case, they've written back and said in a letter, we are not able to discuss the issues of enforcement, but we're concerned and moving forward. It'd be nice to see we made a formal decision to move forward with a rule making. It reminds me of the fact that these events are often what spurs action. Watergate spurred the creation of the commission. It reminded me of a saying that Everett Dirksen said about himself. He was a cranky old senator from Illinois, friends with most of the people in the Senate, looked upon each other with a skeptical eye. When I feel the heat, I see the light. And I think we are now feeling the heat and I think we can show that we're going to do something about seeing the light. The... let me say this, I'll vote for any of these motions, as far as I'm concerned, it's a step forward. The issue before us is whether or not we want to take a more formal step in information-gathering or whether we want to move directly and wait until we get that information after draft rules have been prepared. Since we're really kind of in sync on the overall scheme of things, I think I'll just call upon Commissioner Weintraub and the Vice Chair for other comments on their proposed motions. Commissioner Weintraub? >> You have something in particular you want to say, first? >> Go for it. >> Is this in the order of filing? >> Oh... today has the potential to be a good day at the FEC. We haven't had that many good days here in recent times. I'm feeling cautiously optimistic. I was pretty excited last night. There was, there was a time when we had half a dozen rule makings going on all at the same time, in any one year, I have staff that are, that have been working for me for two years now that haven't participated in a rule-making project yet. So... it's exciting to think that we might actually have the potential to open a rule making here. I think the chairman is right, there's, we're definitely feeling the heat, although I kind of regret that we had to wait this long. Some of us have been trying to move the ball forward for a long time. But... I also think that we oughta be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I don't see the desire to hold a hearing and desire to get started on drafting a rule-making document is mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they could mutually beneficial and that's what I propose in my motion. We have a motion to open a hearing and motion to open a rule making and I want to do it all. I don't think our hearing calendar is so cluttered that we couldn't actually hold two hearings. One as we're going through the comments and preparing a draft rule-making document, we could seek to inform ourselves better to make sure that rule-making document is drafted correctly. And once we dot all our Is and cross all our Ts and have firm proposals out there, we could have another hearing to make sure we get it right and get people's responses to get the specifics of our proposals. We've gotten a lot of comments already on advanced notice of proposed rule makings. I really want to thank everyone who took the time to comment. It was really so important and so informative for us to hear from so many people. There are thousands of citizens who wrote in to say, please, this is an important issue. You must act and there are also some very deep thinkers on this issue, who have written to us with various ideas that are not all in sync and there are, the tech companies, who have written in and they are, it was very encouraging to me that Twitter, Google and Facebook all submitted comments. They all seemed to support our going forward and doing a rule-making, but they have different slants on the issues. I think it'd be really informative to bring them here and talk to them about the differences in their approaches. I'd like to ask you know, Twitter, for example, they just expanded their character limitations from 140 to 280. Is there anything that prevents them from expanding it further? Or from... providing leeway for people to do political disclaimers in particular? I think they, I don't want to diminish the efforts that any of the tech companies have already undertaken, which I think are very promising to increase transparency on their platforms. But... if we're going to do this, and I hope we are, let's do it right. Let's make sure we do it right. Let's inform ourselves every step of the way. We could use as models, some of the rule makings that have been done. I think it'd be great if we could bring in people from both California and Maryland and ask them how their rules have been working out. Are there any loopholes they discovered? Are there things they wished they'd done that they didn't do? And ask the folks that are complying with those rules, how it's going for them? Is it feasible for them to work under these rules? Is it not feasible? Are there aspects that are problematic for them that maybe we could do better? I think there's a lot of opportunity for us to get really helpful information and to develop and craft the best possible rule. Just this morning, we got a letter from the ranking member on our oversight commit in the Senate, asking us specifically to have a hearing and offering to come and testify if we did. We don't often get members of the Senate offering to come and testify before us. We've gone and testified before them, but they don't often offer to testify before us. That's an offer, I don't think we should turn down. This is all against the back drop of the very disturbing news that we've been receiving all year long about foreign intents to influence our elections. I think we have to take strong action about this. If we want the government to take action on this. Should be taking action on this ... we have a role to play here. Some falls squarely within our jurisdiction. What we are contemplating doing today is a positive first step, but it's a small step. No one should be under the illusion this will solve all the problems. If we can get this internet disclaimer rule-making going this will take care of all the problems in our elections. That won't do that. I'm excited to start this process. But let's not kid ourselves. There's more work to be done. You know... the, the longest road starts with a single step and I'm happy to optimistically hope that we might be able to take that step. To take some step. I'm hoping we can do, as I suggested, that we can, um... get the staff started drafting a notice of proposed rule making. The first formal step in the rule making process and at the same time, we can hold a hearing and try to gather more information to make that the best-informed document possible. With the idea that we will probably end up having another hearing once the document is finalized and voted on. I'm hoping that we can work on all of this existentially. Another reason for trying to do things on simultracks. 2018 is coming fast upon us. And... I think it would be really great if we could get some new rules in place, in time to shore up and have better disclosures in time for the 2018 election. I think that is a, that's, that's a heavy lift for us, that will require some fast action, but I think we're capable of doing it. And... I'm, I remember, after the Feingold Law passed, Congress gave us a 90-day deadline to get the rules done and the agency did it. We had late-night hearings and rolled up our sleeves. That was arguably a more complicated rule-making to figure out than this one. I don't see any reason why we can't, again... show that the FEC can get the job done and... can do it in a manner that is efficient enough to make a difference in the next election. So... at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I'd make the motion that I've outlined in the document that I made public for today's meeting. >> Thank you very much. For your ever-present optimism. Madam Vice Chair? >> I think there is some agreement here, and I'm looking forward to all of us working together on it. That is specifically to ask the Office of General Counsel to begin drafting a notice of proposed rule making in a manner that we described and the document released last night. The motion by Myself, Commissioner Petersen. The comment period ended just this past Monday. We got a lot of comments. Many of us haven't had a chance to read all of them yet. I concur, thanking the public for responding to that and... those comments, I think, obviously, deserve to be, to be considered. We have rules on the books right now governing disclaimers on the internet and any communication containing express advocacy or soliciting contributions that any person pays for on another person's website must include a disclaimer. I think the discrete issue that we're talking about and came up in a lot of the comments that were filed, it also came up in hearings on Capitol Hill a few weeks ago. Involves around the small items and impracticability exception to those rules. We'd like to delve into that in a deeper way and... in a lot has changed in technology since 2011 and the recent comments, you know... explain that in a fuller way than I think even before the Senate Finance Committee a couple weeks ago. That's very helpful for us to know. In light of the changing technology and in light of the comments, I think it's the best use of the public's time and our time to propose specific rules. That commenters can respond to specifically and we can have a hearing after the notice of proposed rule-making has gone out and people have an opportunity to comment on specific proposals of the commission. There's nothing to say that there'll only be one proposal. We may have various versions, we may have questions we want to put in the notice of proposed rule making to the technology companies, but under the Administrative Procedures Act and in order to get the clearest information out to the public, it makes the most sense to put out the NPRM, receive additional, more-specific comments from the public and then have a hearing to flesh out those topics. I don't think all of this will take an extraordinary long amount of time. I know the Office of all of you who are going through all of the comments and posting them and preparing to review them. But I don't think all of this will take an extraordinary amount of time and that's -- nobody intends to take any longer than we need to. As I said, it's a fairly discrete issue that we look forward to, to addressing and I also agree with my colleague that this is not going to cure all ills and I don't want people to be overly optimistic that an NPRM on online disclaimers for express advocacy will cure all problems. This is a pretty, pretty discrete area. At the appropriate time, I'm happy to move for the motion that we outlined our motion and also just to emphasize that, what we propose, it doesn't change any of the other rules adopted by the commission in the internet communications rule-making of 2006. So... again, at the appropriate time, we'll make that motion, thank you. >> Thank you. Commissioner Weintraub? Do you have comments? >> Well... obviously I would, as I said in this, and the Vice Chair reiterated. One way for us to go would be that very narrow path. We're not restricted to that narrow path. I'd like to see us take on some broader issues here and I really don't want to ruin the mood of agreement and commitment to getting things done, but... let me just ask my colleagues, what's, what's the harm in having a hearing as we're drafting to better-inform the NPRM and have another hearing once we have a specific NPRM out there? Are we that busy that we can't spare the time? >> I didn't say it was because we're too busy, I don't think it's harmful, per se, I just think it's more efficient under the APA to allow people to react specifically to draft rules and I also think that you know... we're willing to have a hearing in the future, just not before the NPRM is issued for really... the reasons that I outlined. I mean it's -- [talking simultaneously] >> Okay, I don't know how I can be anymore clear, but I think it's better for the public and for the technology companies to be able to react to specific proposals from the commission. The commission, as you know, we're the experts in this area, we govern the rules requiring disclaimers and certainly... many of us have been here for a lot longer than we expected. We should be able to come up with some draft rules that allow them to respond to it. A lot of the comments and I haven't read them carefully yet, they just came in Monday night -- >> [Too far from mic]. >> A lot of the comments talk about you know... there's different things we can do, we hope the commission has some flexibility, so, I'd like to take a stab at writing that in. I don't think it'll be all that difficult to come up with a couple things. I think the hearing will be far more productive if they're looking at specific draft rules, drafted by the experts in the area. >> Commissioner Weintraub? >> Thank you, with all due respect, we may be the experts on legal rules on disclaimers, but we are not the experts on technology. And... how the technology can be used and can't be used in order to better-inform the public. And that's why I think it would be -- as I said, I think there are some states that have experience with some set of rules. We may, we may end up thinking their rules are just great. We just want to use the same rules that have already been adopted at a state level. We may want to refine them in some way, based on their experience. But... it'd be good to know that up front because if we draft a set of proposals and people come in and say, well... here are our concerns about those proposals, we could find ourselves in a situation where we then have to go out, again, for more public comment. As you know we have to provide an opportunity for the public comment on what we eventually adopt. If the proposals change enough in the course of getting comment on our first crack at it, we could end up having to put it out for comment again, which would slow down the process. I understand that you think it is helpful for people to respond to specific proposals, but... that doesn't really address why it would not also be helpful to get some input from the tech community, from other legal experts and from the folks who've had experience with regulations of this type as we're drafting the regulations themselves. >> For myself, I think it'd be very helpful to people who, like me, do not really have any inherent knowledge regarding these IT issues. My son is different. But... me and many of the rest of us, really need, I think, as much input from as many different directions as we can give it. If we have a one-day hearing in December, which we're really arguing about would be good for us or not, we can invite people we want to hear from, that we've not heard from before, we can also invite, and I think we'd get people who have come and testified, the Googles, the Twitters, the Facebook people to come and help us narrow the focus for us before we finalize a draft rule. I think if we do that, we're going to be wiser and in an area like this, the more we can get, the better. We've yet to hear from the people who -- in the community, who we deal with day in and day out, the people from the professional community, I'd love to hear from some of the people in the other law firms that have been thinking about this. Have some views, are able to comment on what we have received in the way of notices and give us their best take and welcome that. I'm sure they'll be glad to come back, when we have a draft rule to be considered. Let's be wise about the thing and learn as much as we can for those of us that are not experts in the field. And... then draft it in a way that can work and I'm sure there's a lot we can learn from other states, like Commissioner Weintraub says, to inform us. Earlier we were talking about a one-day, three-panel hearing which would allow us to take that information from people we invite and we think can help us. And... to move along in the drafting. We're not experts in this, some of us, at least, aren't experts in the particular rules in this area. Madam Vice Chair? >> Commissioner Hunter: We received thousands of comments in one day, how many, approximately? >> We're still trying to get our hands around the full volume... but I think rough estimates... close to 60,000 or so of actual comments including from organizations, people submitting comments in organizational, professional capacities and many, many individuals. There's another 25,000 or so, comments, signatures accompanying comments and then we have probably around 50,000 sort of mixed signature/comments that we're parsing through. So... over 100,000. The exact number, >> Commissioner Hunter: I haven't read them yet, carefully, I'm guessing my colleagues haven't either. When everyone's talking about hearing from people, we just got a bunch of comments and people are saying "let's get more on a hearing." Let's take a minute, let's read the comments, let's review the congressional testimony. There were three hearings on The Hill a couple weeks ago. I don't think that's feasible by December 16th or 14th. Let's put out concrete rules to discuss. We're agreeing on moving forward, we're just disagreeing on, essentially, when to hold the hearing. We're not going to support one in December, but thanks for your pitch. >> Commissioner Walther: In the past, we've not moved as quickly as we thought we could. Especially when we're not sure of a number of issues and implications. This would be an opportunity to hear from people we invite, who have been thinking about these issues, people we respect and we'd like to get their opinions. Hopefully the Vice Chair will change her mind in the next ten minutes. [laughter] Commissioner Weintraub? >> Commissioner Weintraub: Now he's being optimistic. I don't want to belabor this point because I get the feeling that people are pretty entrenched in their positions and I really don't want to undermine the positive message that I believe we are all going to agree on, taking a step forward, and I do think that is a very positive message for this agency. I'm just going to make one, further, small point in a hearing on The Hill, I think last week, Senator Sass asked the Attorney General "do you think we're doing enough to prepare for future interference by Russia and other foreign adversaries?" And the information states, the Attorney General said "probably not, we're not. The matter is so complex we're not able to fully grasp the technical dangers that are out there." The tech companies that have submitted comments, and I really appreciate what they've given us so far, have largely described what they are doing voluntarily, right now, and have said, and we'd love to get some guidelines from you, so... we make sure that we're doing it right and that everybody's on a level playing field and some concern expressed that you know, they like the idea of having a set of rules that applies to everyone so that someone who is stepping up to the plate and being very transparent is not put at a competitive disadvantage with other platforms that, maybe, are not voluntarily, being so transparent. But I bet they would jump at the chance to come in here and help us actually craft the rules and advise us on what is possible and what would work and what wouldn't work. They've been very cooperative on The Hill so far, they've been very cooperative in responding to our requests for comments. I personally asked them all for comments, so, I want to thank them for that. I appreciate it, but I think we could end up with a much-better set of rules if we'd inform ourselves at an early point, instead of saying, we got proposals, now you can respond, now we have to fix the proposals. Maybe we could work together in an iterative way and make it, get it right the first time. That's, that's really all I got. But... I... I'll share the chairman's optimism for a moment that maybe we can sway you. >> Commissioner Walther: As far as the tech community goes. I think we'll get a lot more out of them. I went to one of the hearings, they're very engaged, believe me, and they hadn't heard about us before, but know about us now. This is a strong letter from the Senator today. People have been watching what we're doing. I'd like to be able to say we went out and tried to get the best information, the best way we can get it and to learn the best we can for of those us that really don't understand this very well, but are yet in the process of trying to draft it. And learn what we can. There are people out in the community, the legal community who would, I think we could really benefit from, before we even begin our drafting, much less end it and that's certainly in the IT community. I think would be a much better chance of them coming to us when they have an open ability to communicate what we have to do, rather than give them some complicated-looking rules and ask them to fly in and tell us what we did wrong. That puts them in a tough spot because... then they have to comment about what we have been saying and I think, if I were general counsel for Google, which I'm not, I'd say you have to be careful before walking in and giving advice about regulations when you haven't been asked about those, you know... the particular area before. I think it's, you know, we'd do a lot better job and be able to look back and say we tried to do the best we could, if we get that information as soon as possible. Vice Chair? How am I doing? >> Commissioner Hunter: Not that I was going to move to your position, but I went closer to my position after Commissioner Weintraub read the comments from Attorney General Sessions. I'm sure he wasn't thinking about disclaimers from the FEC when he was talking about things we can do with cybersecurity. That's the sort of thing, that I think is problematic. If we're somehow thinking that people can come from the technology companies and just talk about all of the things that are going on right now, that, that's not productive and that's exactly why I think, writing rules that we, over the kind of conduct we can govern. Again, this is a very discrete area and opening, you know... an open-ended public hearing, I think really runs the danger of giving people false hope that we have any jurisdiction over the vast, vast majority of the issues that are going on right now in the intelligence community. >> Commissioner Weintraub? >> Commissioner Weintraub: I'm not suggesting that tutorial on everything that's going on in the world, although I was saddened to hear that in fact, there was nothing going on in the Justice Department, according to the testimony that the Attorney General gave. He said "I'm not sure we have a specific review underway at this point in time." Which was a little disheartening. We may the only ones in town right now, really talking about doing anything, as small a piece of it as we can handle. We can't, obviously, take over the role of the Justice Department or of Congress, but I do think that we could do this little piece, I think there is more that we could do, consistent with our current law, we can't, we can't do everything, we obviously can't expand the definition of communications, which is in the statute, that's why I hope Congress will do that. There's a bi-partisan bill out there. The Honest Ads Act, I hope folks in Congress will really seriously consider. It's certainly true, there's just so much that we can do. But... I have a feeling that if we had the tech folks in here, they wouldn't be seeking to expand our jurisdiction, but they'd be happy to help us refine our thinking and make sure that we were best-informed in how we go about this. And I also just want to say that as I don't want to, I don't want to neglect people, Senator Klobuchar has been great on this topic. I know Representative Sarbanes in the house. We often don't hear a lot from Congress. Contributing to the seriousness of this issue, I want to thank them for paying attention to this little ol' agency and bothering to weigh in on this. Because it is an important issue. >> Any further comment? We can't seem to stop talking about this, but... I think, it sounded like a choice to me as to whether or not we want to be more-informed or less-informed. We haven't had a chance to communicate directly within the IT community that size. This would be an opportunity to do it before we put pen to paper on that issue. Their language, say, here's what you can do. Here's how you phrase it in a way we can't get that without collaborative help. One day, this is all it would take to have that input in time to have them, I don't think they focused on disclaimers a lot. There's been a lot bigger issues for them. Whether or not their policies are such that they, you know, endanger the ability of our democracy to work as they should. They haven't had a chance to hear about this particular area. That's where I think we could get a lot of information, rather than have them react to some drafting that might be clumsy-looking to them, not to us. Before we do that. And... we do have some awfully bright people here in the legal community that we haven't communicated directly with, who I think really can add to what we're thinking about doing. Otherwise, we find ourselves using our Office of General Counsel and us, commissioners, to try to come up with something, which I think would be a good product, but could it be the best? I'd be doubtful. >> Commissioner Petersen: I don't want to grasp defeat from the jaws of success here, so... let me just say, Commissioner Weintraub needs to be credited with pushing this issue and pushing us. So, I'm going to give you credit, Commissioner Weintraub, for that. >> Thank you, commissioner. >> Commissioner Petersen: I believe the NPRM vehicle we use is really a fashioned vehicle, it's really not contemplated in the Administrative Procedures Act or our statutes, but we used it quite effectively to obtain thousands of public comments to inform how we proceed here. And I also think the issue is discrete enough that what we're talking about is not changing fundamental disclaimer rules. I want to underscore for anyone that's listening to us, current law already provides disclaimers and the transparency that they provide on, paid ads, on the internet and on digital, mobile devices. And the only real dispute we've had is what to do about the very small ones? The ones that are character-limited or the ones that are very small screen swipe, you know... the -- that's where we have disagreed. That is a discrete issue. That I think a rule-making would be constructive. We have several advisory opinions and split votes on advisory opinions. And to the extent we can bring clarity to that issue, for the American people, what we do about the small digital paid ads, I think the best vehicle for addressing that is the one that is contemplated in the APA. Which is an NPRM where we put out an idea and then we get specific comment about that proposal, and it is ordinary course to then have a hearing about that specific proposal and then go back and make adjustments in that way. And... there is, now... a, a stack of materials on my desk from actually four congressional hearings on this issue. And... we have received comments from all of these companies now. I think it is our job to take that, digest it, synthesize it, and come up with a proposed rule and by the way, the Honest Ads Act has a proposal of its own, on this issue, of the disclaimers required on the small digital ads. So... I believe it's now incumbent on us to take that work, try to fashion a proposal and then obtain specific comment on that proposal. And we can have a hearing at that point. I'm not hearing disagreement, and... to the extent there's any credit to be awarded, I give it to you Commissioner Weintraub for pushing us and this is an effort, not only to respond what we're hearing about internet ads, generally, many of which would have fallen outside of our jurisdiction, but to add clarification for American citizens who want to advertise in small screens as well. So, I think we oughta follow the NPRM course here, the one laid out in the APA, take the information we have, our expertise in the regulation. We, we not only have thousands of comments here, and four hearing transcripts to rely on, on Capitol Hill on this issue, and... a template from Congress itself in the Honest Ads Act, but we have the experience of four or five significant advisory opinions that we thrashed through here, before my time here and since I joined. And I think it's time to put the ideas on paper, fast an NPRM that we can develop consensus around, put it out there and then let the tech companies respond to that. I think that's just the more orderly process. I think it's going to be a more corrective process, it will has the benefit of being the process that the law provides for. So... I'm going to support the proposal, Vice Chair Hunter, the one we agreed on, and I just want to underscore, it's targeted, it's true to the endeavor that you started, commissioner Weintraub, when we put out an ANPRM. It's limited to the issue of disclaimers, not a broader set of issues. I don't see this as a vehicle for opening up the 2006 rule making. On internet communications generally by American citizens. That's why I'm going to support the more Prudential, what I see as the more Prudential, orderly process of following the process by APA here. >> Commissioner Weintraub: Thank you for your comments. I've tried to put all sorts of proposals before the commission and it's nice to know that something actually might get four votes. I, I hear what you're saying, I hear what the Vice Chair is saying that you are interested in making sure that this is very narrow. I would go for something broader. I think we received a number of comments that have urged us to go broader, but I'm not going to reject the opportunity to take a small positive step forward because it's not everything that we want. I... don't know, Mr. Chairman, do you want to move your motion first? >> Commissioner Goodman: I understand -- your motion contemplates seeking, opening a rule making that could consider any information conveyed in the course of public hearings before Congress in this commission. Are you suggesting we open the 2006 rule making in any other way. >> Commissioner Weintraub: I'm not suggesting that we necessarily throw open the doors wide at this point, obviously I've proposed so many things over the course of the last couple years on this topic and various breadths of engagement. I think it's indisputable. There's been technological change since 2006 and our regulations could probably use some updating, but... I never believed that you guys were going to go for a wholesale internet rule making. I listen to part of the hearings on Capitol Hill. I'm interested in going back through that material. Obviously some of that material won't be relevant to us and... I think it's my impression that a lot of the focus on Capitol Hill in those hearings, has been on what happened in the past. And what I'm thinking about right now, as the most urgent topic, figuring out proactively, what do we do next? What can we do now, prospectively to make things better in 2018? I think making a small change to our internet disclaimers will be a small step. I think there's more we can do and some of the comments have suggested that and urged us to take on a larger chunk of material. I'm not under any delusions that we wouldn't have to still vote on an NPRM and what works on paper and get it out the door. What I think we're going to do today is launch the process. But we need to get the document drafted and move that to go out the door. I'm not under any delusions as to how broad that document could be in order to get more votes. So... that's, that is what it is. >> Commissioner Goodman: I don't have a clear idea of the other issues you think might be contemplate instead your motion, what could be broader than the disclaimers. We started this process discussing disclaimers on paid internet ads. I don't know what else you're contemplating that could be broader. So... before I leap, I want to have a good idea of where you're headed in your motion. I have a good idea of the wording and where Commissioner Hunter's motion will take us. >> Commissioner Weintraub: I think the biggest difference between my proposal and yours is the incorporation of a hearing at a sooner point, at an earlier point in the process to help inform the drafting of the document. I'd be happy to, while as I said, I'd be willing to look at other issues and you know, pull out any one of the half a dozen proposals that I put on the table before now, I would be happy to limit my motion to that discrete issue if you are contemplating agreeing to the other aspect of this, which is that we'd have a hearing. Is that on the table? >> Commissioner Goodman: I stated why the NPRM is a better approach to addressing this issue. Yes... I'm going to support moving forward on this with the, with the contemplation that there will be an NPRM in the future and there would be a hearing at the appropriate time to inform the commission on the mark that the commission sets for the public to react to. >> Commissioner Hunter: Am I hearing correctly, Commissioner Weintraub, the major difference is you want to have the hearing earlier in the process. So... it sounds like you're willing to vote for our motion on the rule making, right? So... I don't know that we now need to do your motion as well. You can move it if you want to, but if that's the biggest difference, then maybe if we can land on the one we proposed? >> Commissioner Weintraub: I want to make my motion. >> Commissioner Walther: What we're losing out on is the ability to have collaboration with the larger IT community to the point where they get to participate with us in this early hearing before we draft. We get something they can see what we do, see what we're thinking, that applies to the Bob Bowers of the world and the people in the community who haven't been asked to engage yet. And yet... might just, you know... click on the computer and start looking at the comments we've got and thinking about it. So... when we do this, they already feel engaged, working with us, take a look at the draft, they've, just you know, people being what people are. They might not get around to it until they get a nudge. But I think we're losing out on that, but I'm ready for a vote at this point. All in favor of agenda document number 1752A, the document I supported, say aye. Nos? >> Commissioner Hunter and Commissioner Petersen voted against. >> As I indicated in the document, agenda document 1752B, I'm going to read that motion. I move that the commission open a rule making in reg 2011-02... an appropriate rule making document that incorporates such material as the ANPRM public comments received in this matter and information conveyed in the course of public hearings before Congress and this commission. All in favor, aye? Opposed? >> No. >> The motion fails. Vice Chair? >> I move to direct the Office of General Counsel to draft a notice of proposed rule making that proposed revisions to commission rules governing disclaimers on paid internet and digital communications and doesn't propose changes to any other rules adopted by the commission in the internet communications rule making of 2006. >> You changed it. >> I told you I was going to do that. I mentioned it in my comments. >> I'm sorry, I missed that. >> We added to it. >> Mrs. Weintraub? >> I'll support the motion because it's something. And it's a step forward and... I'm happy we are able to take a step forward because too frequently, we are not. So, I will support it. >> I will do the same on the same basis. All in favor? Aye? Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously. >> I'd hate for any comments here today to have been perceived as denigrating the Department of Justice and its effort in this area. I read the newspaper. By way of comedy to our sister agency, I wouldn't want this commission to be misconstrued. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Weintraub: I'm counting this as a win. I don't want anybody to -- I would have preferred to have done it a little bit differently, but... when, last month, I proposed that we reopen the comment period, I honestly was not expecting that I was going to get four votes to even do that. Just to reopenly the comment period and here we are, unanimously agreeing to open a rule making. And I... I'm personally pretty jazzed about that. So... I thank my colleagues for being willing to take this step and... you know... I, I think as I, as I tentatively predicted at the beginning, I think this is a good day for the FEC. >> Commissioner Goodman? >> Commissioner Goodman: Again, congratulations Commissioner Weintraub, but I do want to underscore for those who report on what has happened here today that the change contemplated really focuses on a very narrow and discrete set of disclaimers and that is a narrow and discrete set of internet advertisements. That's the very small ones. Because... if anyone out there believes that they can engage in express advocacy and paid advertising online without disclaimers today, they misunderstand the law. So long as they're large enough and practically can accommodate the disclaimer, you see them all the time. The issue that we need to work on and clarify for the American citizens and to the extent it has salutary effects is the issue of the very small advertisements. And I hope that we can bring some clarity to that issue. Thank you. >> Commissioner Walther: Any further comments? Can Jody McQueen [phonetic] please stand. This is a last open meeting for Julia Queen. We'd like to wish her the best in her retirement. She has worked at the FEC including processing and the press office and she worked as a paralegal in the Office of General Counsel. In 2009, she rejoined the press office as a public affairs specialist. As anyone knows, she radiates joy and a can-do spirit. She's been a tremendous help over the years. She may be hanging up her work clothes, but we don't expect her to slow down any time soon. Congratulations, Julia. [applause] >> Okay, we're now adjourned. [Meeting concluded at 11:a.m. ET].