This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on December 14, 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.




>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Pardon the delay. This will convene the Federal Election Commission meeting for Thursday, December 14, 2017. We'll begin with the recommendation on the Hawaii Democratic Party.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I move to suspend the rules so we can consider this document.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Ayes? Opposed? The motion has it unanimously. Any beginning comments? Would you like to proceed?

>> I don't believe the audit division has any further comments. We presented last week, sir.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: On the audit division recommendation memorandum on the Hawaii Democratic Party, I had a couple of questions I guess for counsel. On the finding on the TV ad on Laura Lingle was wrong then about a lot of things and she's wrong for Hawaii now. If the commission found, or if the commission avoided a finding for now that that is express advocacy, would that expenditure nonetheless be a coordinated expenditure by the party with the content prong of the coordinated expenditure regulation, nonetheless consider that a coordinated expenditure on a contribution? In other words, there are several content prongs of the regulation. One of them is express advocacy. One of them is electioneering communication. Political parties don't make electioneering communication by definition. Would this nonetheless be a coordinated expenditure for the party? I guess I'm asking do you import the coordinated communication regulation to define coordinated expenditures by a political party?

>> Can you give us a minute. We haven't looked into that question until it was just posed at this minute.

>> We would need to confer with the audit division to confirm that in fact the ad was run within the 90-day period under the content prong.

>> Let me ask do you know when I'm looking at the report, do we know when that TV ad was run?

>> The television ad?

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Yes, for $11,922?

>> Just in our notes, that TV ad, that $11,000 is for a production design of the TV ad and we couldn't find any documentation of the (Away from Microphone)

>> There was the clip that we were looking at yesterday, there was a date on the front of it, but I can't recall what that was. I can't confirm that that that was the actual airing date, but I believe it was.

>> (Away from Microphone)

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: For $11,922 in production and design costs.

>> Right.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: And you didn't see a placement or dissemination cost? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of the audit division's recommendation memorandum to the Hawaii Democratic Party. Before I vote, I just want to announce that I'm not sure if this were to ever go to a referral that I would support for punishing the total expenditure limit under the total umbrella of the national and state party since they stayed within that combined limit over what is essentially a paperwork assignment. But it is technically in excess of what they have been assigned. So for purposes of audit, I will support that finding. However, I'm going to move approval of this. And moving the finding of $11,922 for an apparent independent expenditure ad to other issues on the basis that we have no evidence that it was actually disseminated.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Any comment on that? I guess has there been an effort to try to find that out and that simply hasn't been able to be ascertained? Do we have any evidence about whether or not it's ever been disseminated?

>> We've had Phi years.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: No meaning what?

>> We requested that documentation, but --

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I would like to move to recommend as is.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I'll strike my motion on the floor to allow Commissioner Weintraub to make her motion.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Thank you commissioner and Mr. Chairman. I move approval of staff recommendations as set forth in agenda document number 17-56-A.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: All in favor? Aye.

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed? I and Commissioner Weintraub voted in favor. They voted against. Do we have another recommendation?

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I move approval of the audit division's recommendations, however, I'm also moving the finding regarding $11,922 expenditure for the production design costs to either excise it or move it to additional issues. And I leave that to audit to decide.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Do you have any opinion to offer at this point?

>> My only question is this is considered a coordinated expenditure rule, if it were to move to additional issues we would be removing the $11,000.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Yes. You would remove that for the finding on excessive coordinated expenditures.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Any comment on that? All in favor?

>> Aye,

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed? Unanimously it was passed. Thank you very much. We have before us advisory draft opinion 4,01712. Take back action fund. We have this morning a draft C, which has not been put on Blue. We'll put it there right away. We'll take about 15 minutes or so so everyone can take a look at it. I see the advisory opinions draft B was received by us. Is that part of the record yet. This is the take back action fund.

>> Mr. Chairman, we've received four comments total. They're all on our website at this point.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: So there's the two comments. And now we have draft C, which is about to go blue. I believe.

>> I believe the commission secretary's office is waiting for the final version.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: We'll take 15 minutes or so to take a look at it and then we'll proceed at that point. (Break) -- .

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Okay, we're going to reconvene the session. We had a late-submitted documents.

>> I move to suspend the rules on agenda documents in order that the commission can consider agenda document 17-59-C, otherwise known as draft C for the AO.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thank you. Until favor?

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed? None. The motion passes unanimously. And now we'll proceed to the draft advisory opinion number 2017-12. We have Brendan Fischer and John Pudner here ready to inform us on your views. And I think I'll ask the Office of the General Counsel to have a discussion on where we are at this point.

>> Agenda document 17-59-A, B, and C present three opinions from Take Back Action Fund. They plan to purchase paid ads on facebook, which may advocate for or against some candidates. All of the drafts conclude that Take Back Action fund's Facebook ads require a disclaimer. A says the disclaimer must be clear and conspicuous. It provides examples. Draft B assumes the disclaimers will be clear and conspicuous and states that other methods of identifying the source may be permissible. Draft C refers the requester to the other drafts and concludes that the ads must receive a full disclaimer. The commission received four comments on the draft and we're available to answer any questions you may have.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Are there any comments or questions by any commissioner? Madam vice chair?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for joining us today. I hear you came in from Alabama. Welcome back to D.C. Different commissioners are potentially reading your request a little bit differently. The way that some of us read the request is that you're saying you're willing to put the full disclaimer on the ad and adjust your ad a little bit to accommodate the full disclaimer. Our answer to that is you're right. Since you're not coming to us with a request for anything other than the full disclaimer, then you must include the full disclaimer. We are answering the question that you asked. And one of the analogies that we've used in the office a couple of times this year. If you had a child whose job it was to mow the lawn every Saturday. If for some reason your child couldn't mow the lawn on a specific Saturday because it was too cold or the kid was sick, you may say no problem, do it on Sunday or just do half of it on Saturday. This time the Saturday rolls around and the child has no request for special dispensation. So you say yep, mow the lawn. But if he or she were to say I can't do it for some reason, you would say you don't need to do the full lawn or you don't need to do it today or somewhere along those lines. There are several places where it says we're willing to put the full disclaimer on the ad. Yes, you put the full disclaimer. If you came to us with a different set of facts, the answer would be different. I don't think this is an earth-shattering question. When someone comes to us with a question, with respect to a specific transaction or activity, the commission shall render an advisory opinion. We believe that draft B answers your specific question in a way that hopefully satisfies your question. Thank you.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thank you. Commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Thank you. I want to thank you for the question and the staff for drafting some interesting proposed answers. Draft A, I'm going to propose one minor alteration to it before I move its approval, but I think it answers the question in a way that is thorough and comprehensive and responsive to the request that was asked. The notion that our interpretation of the law would hinge on whether you were willing to comply with it strikes me as a very odd notion in deed. It doesn't matter if they say we're willing to comply with what the commission tells us. If we tell them that the law means you need to have the disclaimer, then you're obliged to have the disclaimer. I'll ask you, do you disagree with that?

>> I would just say we have lively debates among our board and there certainly are members who push for not putting disclaimers on. Not to get too into the internal. And I think the question was asked are we saying clarity on whether the disclaimer is inconvenient. For 20 years of running political ads, every disclaimer is inconvenient. One, it's just the space that is taken up. And the second is when you attack someone, the attacker is hurt, too. We just want to leave here knowing the rules. Because we're going to go back and have a discussion among our board, give direction of creative. And there will be some who said hey, I thought Facebook didn't need any ads or a disclaimer. I heard that among people. I just want to leave here with something so I can go back and say hey look, yes. We were right in our general thought. Disclaimers are required on these kinds of Facebook ads. The material may take a different shape over time, but just to have that as a guiding principle. There are certainly some who think you do not ever need a disclaimer on a Facebook ad. That has been proposed by people in our decision-making process.

>> If I could add something. In drafting the request, I may have outed myself as a Midwesterner, because I didn't think that stating a request to to comply with the law was a controversial statement. We thought the inclusion would involve some level of inconvenience. In reading the past advisory opinions and regulations, it appears that the decision about whether a particular advertisement would depend on the constraints of the medium rather than the intent of the requester. We just want to make that clear for the intent of the record.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Very good. Any further comment? Mr. Goodman?

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: John, good to see you.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: By the way, you can include Westerners along with the Midwesterner, also.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Your comment caused some confusion with draft B. Draft C says yes, include the disclaimer somewhere within that Facebook ad. And I don't read the exceptions as Mr. Fischer said, some level of inconvenience. You're right, all disclaimers represent some level of inconvenience. That to me is not what triggers the practically of the disclaimer. I may add at least for this one commissioner nothing could be more impracticable than where the disclaimer requirement would censor the entire message. And I didn't see that occurring in your proposal or either in your proposal that included an intent to comply with the law. And you also presented a number of characters that would allow you to comply with the law. In other words, I could see how not only have you prepared to include the disclaimer, but the ads you propose can accommodate them in a number of different ways. So where I saw that, it wasn't even accommodating them could be inconvenient. I don't think that's the trigger for the exception. But draft A cites as an example of disclaimer compliance by people advertising on online media the FTC rules. And let me just read what that citation says. This is the documented from the FTC that draft A cites. If a disclosure required by the FTC is required and it is not possible to make the disclosure clearly and conspicuously, then that ad should not be disseminated. This means that if a particular platform does not provide an opportunity to make clear and conspicuous disclosures, then that platform should not be used to disseminate advertisements that require disclosures. Now that to me triggers either the small item or the impracticallable provision. Where the disclaimer where actually present the message from being presented at all. I didn't read that in your intent, in your character message, because you have a truncated message. And moreover, as I looked at the new Facebook ads themselves, I see a number of different ways that you can include the disclaimer. And that's why draft B says yes. You can include that disclaimer -- let's take the Facebook video ad. It runs up to 240 minutes. And that is an online ad that appears on either a cell phone screen or a computer screen. It's multiple inches in circumference, both height and width. And because that 240-minute video is like an accordion that can go up to 240 minutes, adding a few seconds to include your disclaimer would be one way to include that disclaimer in that ad. And that can be as overlaid text to the video, or that could be a separate segment of the video itself. Because again, it's an accordion. So a few seconds of ad time, of video time to provide that disclaimer doesn't otherwise prevent you from otherwise communicating your political message. In addition to that, you've got the overlay potential. In addition to that, you've got the character space both above and below that picture. So when I looked at all the functionality and the size of these ads, that's what distinguished this. And I would like you to have the flexibility. And I would like all political speakers to have the flexibility to both speak and comply with our regulations. And the way I view the new Facebook formats, the ad formats, you can do both. You can do both effectively. You can communicate politically effectively and you can comply by providing the disclaimer information. Now both draft A and draft B agree that when you provide that information, it doesn't have to be in the square box for printed materials. Draft A says that is one possibility. But the commission has historically said that internet ads are not the same as traditional broadcast ads or printed ads like in a direct mail piece. So draft A here even says you could supply some of that information above the picture and some in the text below. You could provide some above, some in the image itself. Take the Facebook image ad. You can do an overlay over the image or you can provide the disclaimer as part of the image. Part of the picture that's in the image. So when I saw all the capabilities of these new ads, I was prepared to say yes, we are not going to censor these political messages in the way that the FTC does and the way that draft A would suggest might be appropriate. And yet I wanted to leave you the flexibility providing the public the information required in our disclaimer rules in a very flexible way given the flexibility of this new format. So the answer is yes, include the disclaimer. You have a lot of flexibility for how you do so.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Commissioner Weintraub? I thought I saw your hand up earlier.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: It was so long ago Mr. Chairman, I forgot what I was going to say.

>> COMMISSIONER WALTHER: Any comment? I support draft A. I like it. I think I would support that all the way through here. Are we ready for a vote? Apparently so.

>> Sure, I'll make a motion.

>> COMMISSIONER WALTHER: Commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to advisory opinion 2017-12 Take Back Action Fund, I move approval of draft A as the answer in set forth in agenda document -- wait, wait, with the minor correction. I want to make small deletion on page 9 of the draft. There is a reference to online 6 through 9, there is a but see cite to a referring statement to one commissioner. And I mean no disrespect to that commissioner in deleting it, but I just don't think the citing to individual commissioners is appropriate in an an AO, because one commission's view is not precedential. My motion would adopt all of draft A, but would delete with the exception of the language on lines 6 to 9 on page 9 starting with the "but see," through the end of that citation. So the sentence would just end on page 6 after the word "exception, close paren, period." And then the next sentence would start "in particular."

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Any questions on what the motion consists of? All in favor? Aye, aye.

>> Opposed?

>> No, no.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: The motion fails. Commissioner Weintraub voted in favor, I voted in favor. The vice chair, Commissioner Goodman, and I'm assuming Commissioner Petersen voted against. Any other motions?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I move approval of agenda document 17-59-B, otherwise known as draft B.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: All in favor?

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed?

>> No.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: The motion fails. Commissioner Weintraub and I voted against.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: As you know we just made another draft, draft C public while the public meeting just started this morning and I hope people had a chance to take a look at it. That one says yes you have to include the disclaimer, but it doesn't provide a lot of information on how to do so because we don't agree on the answer to that. It provides a footnote, footnote one, so that the public knows which documents different commissioners voted on.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Comment, commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I was hoping we could put together a document like this, but I would prefer to do it in the even more stripped-down way that we did in the FYP case advisory opinion. But the sticking point, I think, is going to be that as I understand it my colleagues are quite insistent on having that footnote. But no one actually voted for Draft A as is. I mean we voted for Draft A with an amendment. I wouldn't want anyone looking at draft A because it wouldn't reflect what my views are. The way we have done it in the past is put out concurring statements. And that would cause less confusion.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Madam Vice Chair?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I agree. We wouldn't want to include something something that you didn't actually vote on. We could call it draft A version 2? We would be happy to do that. That's a helpful suggestion.

>> Mr. Chairman, John, reaction to that. To get a unanimous reaction on the answer of yes?

>> I like draft C. I understand the reasons for some of the notes later in B. It seems to take out some of those concerns. Just as far as the internal discussion we will have. I just want to leave here knowing the rules. And for me, I think C does that. And to your point on what is a very inconvenient, onerous requirement, I argued in Connecticut against the Attorney General on I guess the other side of disclosure. Because they wanted us to make us do the disclaimer on the front of robo calls, which would have eliminated the first right ability to speak. I feel comfortable walking in with C for my purposes saying here we do have to disclaim. I would appreciate a positive on it of the consideration of the commissioners.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Any comment? Commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I would like to just suggest to Mr. Pudner that he take a look at the Club for Growth AO on this issue of robo calls and very short, I don't think that actually involved a robo call, it involved a radio ad, but it may provide some guidance on the kind of situations that you're referring to. And our staff can give you the cite to that particular.

>> Commissioners, can I just request. I want to make sure that we're clear if we're being asked to prepare another draft that amends the original draft A. I just want to make sure that that is what's being requested of us?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: It's not being requested. I don't think we can (Chuckling) I don't think we can rewrite the history that way. You know, to put out a blue draft after the meeting that we're referring on.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: We could just put as amended.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: But then people would have to listen to the tape to figure out what the amendment was. I can accomplish the same goal by just changing the captions on the document.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: What was your proposal?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I can take draft A and turn it into a concurring statement very easily and that will explain the my rationale for my vote. I just don't understand why that footnote is so critical.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Because without the footnote, there would be an advisory opinion on the public record that would presumably garner five votes. And it would eliminate for the public the reasoning behind how commissioners voted. And I think it gives it, frankly it gives the draft a lot more --

>> Context.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Right. Thank you. Including the footnote clearly gives the public more information and more context again in how commissioners voted. Without it, it leaves a lot to be desired and I think one could read a lot more into this opinion than they may otherwise. And it sounds like the requester is happy to get a vote. It would be a great way to end the year to have an advisory opinion that gets all five votes. And we're happy to say as amended in there. Your vote says draft A with this change. The public record is clear in that sense. We can alter the footnote to say as amended.

>> You raised the importance of the footnote in providing context. And I wonder, and I apologize for the drafting of the initial request and for the late submission of the comment. But one of the points that we made in the comment was that we were concerned that there were elements of the request that were mischaracterized in draft B, and it may not have been critical to the final outcome. But there was language, there was language in draft B that suggested that Take Back Action Fund did not think that including a disclaimer would compromise or diminish the political message that it wished to convey. And clearly that is the case, as Mr. Pudner has attested to. Would it be possible to include also a cite to our comment in this footnote to provide that additional context?

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: It's not part of the commission's own speech. It will be part of the public record. When I see a 240-minute video, I wasn't necessarily impressed that you have to crop or limit in any way your political message to add a few seconds of disclaimer to the front end or back end of that video that appears. So that wasn't necessarily dispositive to my thinking.

>> But there was the language in draft B that characterized the requester as not believing that the inclusion of a disclaimer would compromise or diminish the political message that it wished to convey.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I understand your point of contention with draft B. We already voted on that.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the requester brings up an important point, though. It's one of the reasons why I'm uncomfortable in incorporating the draft into the footnote. If you want to provide context for what you're doing, issue a concurring statement that explains exactly why you're voting for it. I agree with requester. I think draft B mischaracterizes the request, which very specifically asks about how prior AOs apply to the conduct that you're anticipating and I think draft B kind of pretends that those questions aren't even there.

>> Mr. Chairman?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Commissioner Goodman.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: It will reflect that Commissioner Weintraub voted against draft B. We're just trying to preserve the history of what occurred here. It preserves on the public record as a qualification to the yes. But certainly your disagreement with draft B is clearly reflected in a parenthetical that you voted no on draft B.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Would it say the same for me? Any further comment? All in favor?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: What's the motion?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I don't know actually. We've done A and B.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Mr. Chair?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Madam Vice Chair?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Commissioner Weintraub, I know you proposed amending one of the sentences. I don't have the language. But as I told you before, when we reconvene, I would be happy to accept your amended language in the body of draft C.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I will explain the language so everybody will know what we're talking about. After reviewing draft C, and we were, there was some back and forth last night on whether we could land on a draft C. But this version of draft C I didn't see until we were literally at the table. What I proposed was to copy the language that we had used in a previous AO where we had this kind of problem. It was an AO that I think was issued to FYP. And maybe counsel can help me with the AO number. Does anybody have that? Well, somebody will find it. But so what I was going to propose was that we take the same language that we had agreed on before, which would mean that online 23 of draft C. I want to make sure I'm looking at the right version of it. On line 23, the rest of that paragraph would be amended to read although the commission could not agree on the legal basis for its conclusion by the required affirmative votes. And I would be willing to vote for that unfootnoted.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Madam Vice Chair.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I are prefer the original language, but as I told Commissioner Weintraub, I would be willing to vote for her amendment to the body of draft C, but only if it includes the reasons for the footnotes discussed. I would hate to not have four votes because we wanted to include a footnote for public documents that incorporates more context into what we did today. It just confuses me.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: It also confuses me why you can't accomplish the same goal through the traditional method?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Because if I issued a concurring statement, yes it would be public and on the website, but not within the body of the document that garnered four votes. And it's important to me. One could read draft C and read more into it. There are a lot of nuances that are not incorporated obviously into draft C. And we want to make sure that the thoughts that we explained here publicly and issued in draft B are incorporated into the document that is hopefully approved by the commission.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Any further comment?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I think we're in at an impasse.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I plan to stay with draft A. Do we have a motion?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: No. (Laughing) Because it's not going to get four votes.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Okay, so apparently we're not going to be able to vote on draft C because of footnote one. Apparently.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thank you very much.

>> Could we take just a brief recess?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Sure.

>> Thank you. (Re recess) (Recess)

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: It looks like we're concluded with our short break. Take that back. Apologies.

>> At your discretion, I think we're ready to come out of recess.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Okay, thanks. We're back in order. Any further comments?

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We both voted on documents that say yes. We all agree that the proposed conduct is permissible. The requester has indicated that they truly do want a yes. So I think we owe it to the requester and turn over every stone to see if we can get to, we agree with the rationale. But if we don't come up with a draft that receives at least four votes, that's probably some cold comfort to the requester. On the one hand, you could walk away saying the commission was unanimous, all of them said yes for different reasons. But when you're dealing with your board and when you're dealing with others, if you don't have a draft in hand that says I had four votes for this, I'm not sure if saying well let me show you three different drafts that we would cobble together and give us the same thing. Obviously the advisory opinion in the Federal Election Campaign Act provides a shield. And I think if we are at yes, I think we should probably do everything we can to try to get there. So here is another shot at it. And maybe this will require some reflection and some thought and some back and forth. But I'm looking at draft C. And if I garble the proposal, I would be happy to read it another time through to make sure we all understand. Strike the footnote. Strike footnote one. Go to, well, let's start with the sentence on line 20. And I'll just read it and I'll just indicate when an insertion will be made. The commission concludes that under the circumstances required in the request TBAF must include all of the disclaimer information specified by 52 USC Section 3120A on its proposed paid Facebook image and video advertising, although, and then here is where we would add some new language, comma, as reflected in the draft advisory opinions considered by the commission, comma, the commission did not agree by the required four affirmative votes on the basis. Excuse me. Yes. On the legal basis. So insert "legal" in front of "basis" for delete or scope of it. And in lieu of that, include the word "this" conclusion. So let me read it through without indicating where all the stops and starts are. The proposed language would be the commission concludes that under the circumstances described in the request TBAF must include all of the disclaimer information specified by 52 USC3120A on its proposed paid Facebook image and video advertising although comma as reflected in the draft advisory opinions con Sid herbed by the commission, the commission did not agree by the required four affirmative votes on the legal basis for this conclusion. Mr. Chairman?

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I understand and I don't want to interrupt anyone's review of that language. I understand the concern that everyone at this table has. There is always a concern of wanting to maintain and preserve positions and not yield too much and also concerns about perhaps inadvertently having something cited back at them another time. And saying that you conceding a position that you haven't conceded. I am very sensitive to what all the concerns are at the table. And certainly I'm willing to work on trying to get a formulation that will preserve I think what everybody wants to preserve. Obviously lurking in the background of this request is a rulemaking that we have all voted onto undertake over 100,000 comments have that come in. And I commend the Office of General Council for their remarkable work in going through and getting a notice of proposed rulemaking prepared. And hopefully early next year that process can get underway. And I imagine that some of our concern is making sure that we preserve positions don't decide too much in light of what is going to be a more comprehensive undertaking. I do understand what the motivations. It does make this a little bit of a threading of a needle in order to answer and give an affirmative advisory opinion to the requester to give him the comfort that his organization needs while at the same time kind of maintaining the positions that maybe each of us have going in and hope to debate during that upcoming rulemaking. So this is a proposal. Hopefully this moves the ball forward. But I would certainly hope we could find something that gives everybody comfort on this matter.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Thank you. I appreciate the effort. In my experience we never do good work when we try to draft something at the table while we're sitting here. And absolutely no disrespect intended, because I know we're trying hard to thread the needle, but I'm not sure the sentence even entirely makes sense to me as rewritten. But I'm willing to continue to toss language back and forth and see if we can come up with something, which we could vote on tally and then make public. I'm not sure we're going to be able to pull it off sitting here at the table right this minute. And I'm not sure it's fair to everybody who is watching and listening including the requesters to have them sit here all day while, you know, we huddle in our respective corners and try wordsmithing one way or another. So I'm not closing the door on the efforts, I'm just not sure this is the best way to get that done.

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Can I inquire with the Office of General Counsel. What is our calendar on this advisory request?

>> January 8th, I believe.

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: And I know we're voting on the calendar later on in the agenda. I don't have that in front of me right now. What is our proposed first meeting to of the new year?

>> I believe it's January 9th.

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: January 11th.

>> January 9th -- January 11th for the --

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Let me just as further food for thought, as a potential alternative at it, let me propose something else out there just so we have a few different plates or a few different balls in the air that we're juggling. Another possible edit would be at the end of line 22, putting a period after "advertising" on line 23. Striking the word "although," and adding a prefatory clause "for the reasons put forth in the respected draft opinions, comma, and the commission did not agree on the proposal for this conclusion. And striking or scope of it." And of course that would also include striking the footnote language.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Can you give me that one again?

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Sure. Not a problem. End of line 22. Strike the comma. Insert a period after advertising. Beginning of line 22. Strike although. Add the phrase for the reasons set forth in their respective draft opinions, comma, then it would read from there the commission did not agree by the required four affirmative votes on the legal basis for this conclusion. So striking, or excuse me, adding legal before basis and striking scope of its conclusion. And as I mentioned before striking the footnote.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Not prepared to do it right this second.

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: If I may Mr. Chairman?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Mr. Petersen?

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Can I ask the requester, in the event that there was a desire to kind of hash this out, it looks like there might be a three-day extension at a minimum that might be needed to put in place in order to consider this at the first meeting of the new year, or if you couldn't give us an extension, I don't know if there would be interest in trying to resolve this by tally. But what is your timeframe in terms of ability to offer an extension if necessary?

>> An extension into January we would be happy to grant. I'm more concerned about the federal judiciary purging some of the talent up there. I was hoping there would still be a quorum up there for a vote. But we would be happy to grant an extension.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I would like to chat with Commissioner Petersen for a second. (Standing by)

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: We're going to adjourn this meeting until perhaps 2 o'clock. And then maybe if we make headway fine, if not, we'll let you know quickly no. And then in the meantime I'm going to ask for a couple of things to be done by vote. So I guess I would say take it out of order. There are a couple of things that I would like to see us vote on if we can, one of which is our legislative recommendations.

>> So we're not going to recess? We're just going to hold this matter over until 2 o'clock?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I guess that's the phraseology.

>> Mr. Chairman, counsel had something to say.

>> We were informed that requester may not be available after 2 o'clock. I wanted to make the commissioners aware of that.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I think we'll either have a deal or we won't. Let's go to the next agenda item. Mr. Pew, thank you for everything that you do on long this line. But please hold forth here. I don't think it will take a lot of discussion on our end in order to have a vote for you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

>> The draft legislative recommendations for 2017 before you today reflect a commission decision to focus on areas of widespread and perhaps even unanimous agreement from all the commissioners. I want to say that 2018 will be an important year for the administrative fines program recommendation. Because under current law that program applies to reports filed through the year-end 2018 report, which will be due in January of 2019. But the authorization of this program needs to be extended by legislation for administrative fines programs to apply to later reports. In this package, the commission again asked congress to make that efficient and measurably effective program a permanent program.

>> Put it in the bold?

>> Congress has previously acted on the commission's recommendations to extend this program on five separate occasions and legislation in 2018 would be the sixth extension. We recommend that the commission approve all of these recommendations and we'll provide them to congress and the oversight committees, our appropriate subcommittees, and our OMB contacts. And finally I would like to thank the commissioners and as always my colleagues throughout the agency for their contributions to this document.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Any discussion? A motion? Chair?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Mr. Chair, I move approval of agenda document 17-61-A of legislative recommendations for 2017.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: All in favor? Aye.

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed? None. Ayes have it unanimously. Item three. Really all I'm interested in asking is for the data that we compiled periodically out of our office be provided quarterly through the Office of General Council and the part that goes public is redacted in accordance with the recommendations of Larry Calvert. And those are first of all the date of the filing of the complaint. There's only three. All of the material that is requested in the clarification of agenda document except for the ones that go public, there will be no inclusion and the recommendation of Larry Calvert. Maybe you want to run through which ones those are.

>> I think you could lead off, as it's your motion, Mr. Chair.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: It would be the matter of the date of the filing of the complaint. Of course the name of the requester. All dates that the matter is requested to be held over. What is your recommendation on that?

>> I think what we would intend to do if your proposal passes, Mr. Chairman, if I understand the proposal correctly, the information that has been in the charts that have accompanied your motion to, motions over the past couple of years to set enforcement priorities, that we would produce those charts and include them in the enforcement division's quarterly reports. And then that information which we have advised could be made public in the versions of your charts that have been put on blue would periodically be made public each quarter. It is our understanding that we would not be making any information public that has not already been made public in connection with these charts.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: That's exactly right. In other words, you've pointed out the number of areas where you felt that they should also be redacted or just not included. And that's what I fully agree with. And as part of my motion, I don't know how we want to phrase that, but that's exactly what we see. The content and structure. So the items that have been redacted from the enforcement version provided to the commission, something along that line.

>> As I understand the language of the motion, it calls us onto make appropriate redactions. And I guess I would say to the commission our intention is not to do anything differently than we've already been doing.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thank you. Would it be possible to have a motion on that? Madam Vice Chair?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move approval of your proposal as summarized in agenda document 17-53-A. I would like to add one potential request. If we could add an additional column to allow people to provide notes. And in particular, I'm thinking at times when certain things are hulled over for reasons like litigation and different reasons like that, obviously that stuff is going to be redacted and it gives people the opportunity to provide a little bit of context for the reason for the hold. I move approval of the document with that amendment.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: The only concern that I have is that it might be more complex than you think rather than just put it in a square. The reasons could vary. What litigation are you waiting for. I don't know.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: If you don't want to add it, I'll just write my own notes on there. It's fine. I can approve it.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: You're the upcoming chair, because I think you'll get the votes.

>> Madam Vice Chair, I believe you moved 17-53-A. I think the operative document containing the motion to directive 68 is 17-53-B.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Oh, sorry. Thank you.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: And what does it say?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I just had the wrong -- I said A instead of B. Thank you for that correction. I move approval of agenda document --

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I'm not sure I have B in front of me.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: 17-53-B?

>> B as in beta.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I don't think I have that.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: It's right here.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I'm looking at the wrong one. Excuse me.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Is there any further discussion? All in favor? Aye?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed?

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: What's the motion?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: To approve.

>> I abstain.

>> I was going to say for the record, is that with or without the friendly amendment?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: It's without.

>> Without.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: All in favor? Say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed? No. One abstention. Commissioner Weintraub and I, Vice Chair.

>> I voted aye on one. I think Commissioner Goodman had one question. I don't know if that was considered a binding vote. I think he is probably on board. But I think he had a question.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I have a couple of questions before I voted.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Go ahead.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: My vote was recorded as an abstention, I didn't have time. What's the status of that vote?

>> My understanding is the vote was called.

>> I asked the chair if she or the chair announced the vote.

>> He did.

>> The vote has been called.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I would move to mine that if you would like.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I move to reconsider.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: All in favor?

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed? None. Commissioner Goodman, sorry about that.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: The information that would be on this chart goes into the status reports to this commission.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: That's my understanding.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Does that become a public document?

>> It would under this proposal with appropriate redactions. Of the new information that is coming from Commissioner Walther's charts, it would be our intention to redact anything that we're not already making public with respect to those charts. And I guess as to the rest of status of enforcement report, we would redact what the commission adopted last summer.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: May I continue?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Please do.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: The chart that I am looking at called relevant dates.

>> I'm sorry?

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: That's in document 17-53-A. Is that what is contemplated in the language in the amendments to directive 68?

>> I believe so. It's the chairman's motion.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Then I'll direct my question to the chairman. This information that would be presumptively made public subject to redaction, I understood Mr. Counsel to say appropriate redactions. I guess I want to understand the scope of that. For example, your chart, if what is contemplated is the chart that you attached on 17-53-A, I read the language to go a little bit beyond that data. I just want to understand what's contemplated and intended.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I'm just looking for the data. I think I produced five of them so far. That's the one that I'm concerned about.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Let me tell you the one that is the more pointed concern. I see on your chart that is a part of document A, I don't see the date that the complaint was filed with the FEC.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: That's correct.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: But in directive number 68, on page 2, we would say the date of receipt of a complaint.

>> I might be able to clarify on that. As you probably recall commissioner, the chairman has circulated both an internal and a public version of these charts when he has made his motions over the last couple of years. The material, my understanding is that the material that would be presented to the commission in the quarterly status of enforcement report would be the material that has here to fore been in the non-public version of the commissioner's motions and that we would then redact the information that does not appear in the public version of these charts leaving the same information that does appear in the public version of these charts.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: So the document that comes to the commission that would show the date of the receipt of the complaint, the document that goes public would redact that date.

>> Correct.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: The reason I'm concerned about is that people could identify from the date that they know a press release was issued, for example, saying we filed a complaint of XYZ committee on this date.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: It's been redacted for that reason.

>> That is why we have advised Commissioner Walther and his prior iterations of this that that information could not be made public.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: That's a helpful clarification. And it also says all dates that was requested to be held over. That is said in the a passive voice. Was requested to be held over. I see on chart A that the asterisk that qualifies that information. Bear with me. Also as part of A, there is an asterisk. And it says currently subject to an informal hold request by one or more commissioners. Is that intended to be reflected on either the report we received from OGC or made public?

>> I would defer to the chairman on that given that it's his motion.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to understand.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: The same data that we've always had. I was looking for the asterisk.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Is it intended contemplated that under Section 2 little i. I think h-i. That that asterisk --

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: The internal policy. It's holding it back for some reason, but it's not made public because it didn't come to the commission. In this case of concern to me is what I consider to be these holds where nobody knows and there is no formal decision on the fact that things are being held. And that's a concern to me.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: So is this contemplated that there would be an asterisk to matters held over.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Right.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: And there would be some contemplation assigned to that asterisk.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: It hasn't been formally held over so the public can be aware they're being held over, but it hasn't reached a decision by the commission yet. That was my concern.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: The language proposed is all dates that a matter was requested to be held over. That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. My question is what's contemplated by that? Because the asterisk that is reflected in your earlier documents is currently subject to an informal hold request by one or more commissioners. We have held matters over for numerous reasons. We have had formal votes holding them over. The last time we had done that, I had formally explained my rationale for voting to abstain in a matter and I have commit that had to writing. I don't know if that is formal or informal. We held a vote. There are informal holds where commissioners request more time. Then there have been votes of abstention. Commissioner, we had one at the end of 2015 that was a 4 to 1 or 2 vote, I believe. And then there are many matters where Office of General Counsel have submitted it up and then the Office of General Counsel say they still need more time. I want to understand what is meant by the language in the template. Now I don't mind the report saying that the matter showing, for example, that it was held over at these meetings. I guess I just don't want a misleading caption that every time you see an asterisk it's a hold by one or more commissioners. And I don't know what the definition of informal versus formal would be. And I guess we just need to understand what's contemplated by 2i.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: For me the formal hold is when there is a meeting under I guess the tally vote on any action that is formal in the sense that we would like to hold off, you know, we get to the meetings. Need to think more about that if it's being held over. But it's known publicly that it's been held over.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I understand that.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: The formal action here, and it's happened in the past, somebody says, you know, I would like to have you hold that over. And nobody knows about it, but it kind of gets held over.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I understand the purpose of disclosing that it has appeared before the commission. I'm not disputing that. I read the amended language known as 68 not to provide any asterisk and not to provide any reason why a matter was held because that's not in directive number 68.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I guess the point is if something is ready to go and it's being held over, and it's not been done at a Commission level, that people get to find out that something is being held over.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I understand that.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: What would you suggest?

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Let me ask the Office of General Counsel. Do you read the changed language in Section 2 B2i --

>> I did not read the language to include rationales or assignment as to who. I did read J, right underneath that, as contemplating assignment as to who. And I had advised the chairman's office that we would likely redact that information unless the commission, if that information was going to be made public, we would appreciate very clear guidance from the commission on that. And I think we would appreciate some clear guidance on the questions you have raised on i, as well.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Mr. Chairman, I think the information is fair. I have been prepared to own any holds that I have made. And I'm prepared to continue to do that. I have done it, I've committed it to writing in the minutes of the meeting on two occasions. But I think that you should be aware that your proposal is going to still leave some need for clarification for the Office of General Counsel and the Commission. And there are many people who may be the requesters of a hold. It could be the Office of General Counsel.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: That's part of my concern is that sometimes it's been held that way. And I just think if it's ready to go and it's been held without commission action, then I think that's important to be aware of. But I am aware that there's been times in the past where the Office of General Counsel has held things over or maybe one of the commissioners have asked and said can you hold that off for a while. I want to discourage that practice. Or at least make it known that that is happening to the case.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: That's what's happening to the case.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Yeah, it's happening to the case.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Let me ask Office of General Counsel, reading it now. You contemplate redacting the names of the requesters? If it's office of General Counsel who have requested to hold it over?

>> I have to say I have not considered the question in light of anything other than commissioners. That had been our determination in terms of commissioners.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: It would be redacted in that case?

>> Yes. Absent contrary direction from the commission.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: And how about if it's a vote of the commission? In other words one commissioner moves to proceed and there is a vote of the commission to take more time with it? We've had that in a couple of instances.

>> I would want to give that some thought. My initial reaction is that that is a reflection of the deliberative process of the commission while the case is still ongoing. So my initial reaction is to be inclined not to include that. But I would want to give it some more thought.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: It says the number of dates between the date of the complaint and referral and commission action to be inaction. Calculated at the close of the quarter.

>> I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Which document are you on?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: This is on paragraph three page two of the blue copy. The red line. Instead of the word "action" it's "inaction."

>> So this would change it. I'm with you Mr. Chairman.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Sounds good.

>> I think the one thing that I might want to add here in terms of what kind of direction you give us on i and j, not just about what is made public and what's not, but just on the nature of the data to begin with, we're going to, there are some calls here on what to include and what not to include that we don't currently make that the chairman has put in his charts. And in terms of what to include about who is holding something over and why even if that information is not released publicly attributing it to a commissioner might be, or to somebody that is not OGC, some cases we'll know, some cases we might not know. And so we're going to need some clear direction from you guys as to just what data you want separate and apart. You'll get to see the first one. And tell us what you want and what you don't.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I'm prepared to support this. I don't know if enforcement bodies normally tell the public where they stand on each case. This is a fair transparency. However, I must say the more we start revealing then the more possibility there is going to be that commissioners have to defend their proceedings publicly. Whenever I've held something, I've put it in writing for about two years. And so if some of those may go public as a result of that. And I do see one consequence of this being that commissioners may start to talk more publicly about the proceedings here in generic terms.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I guess that's possible. I admire your diligence keeping track of your holdovers for two years. That's pretty diligent of you there. But I can't say, you know, what the reaction is going to be. I think if people want to look at it, they can understand how we're doing here, which I think is part of the idea. To just be open and be able to disclose what the public is entitled to know. You know, unless it somehow needs to be redacted. Are we ready to vote?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Instead of calling for a separate document on a note on item j that we were just talking about, the name and/or names of requesters in part of what Commissioner Goodman was talking about, encapsulates what I was trying to talk about earlier, there are times when there is a very good reason for holding some things over. And I think allowing the commissioner whose name now is going to be put in the document a short reason. We could even put in a key of something that OGC held it over or commissioners needed more time or they were holding it for pending litigation. Or sometimes commissioners put a lot of matters on an agenda where it is literally impossible to be prepared for all of them. So sometimes there are unusual circumstances. I don't anticipate that happening next year. But it's happened before. So I think if you would be willing as a friendly amendment the name of the requester and any pertinent information.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Bear in mind the name of the requester does not go public.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: And the name of the requester would not.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: When we debated how we proceed previously, I proposed a directive at that time that would have required commissioners to explain their rationale.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I would vote for that if you want to bring it up again. I don't think it reached a vote, did it? It's probably snagged with some of the other provisions.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I just want to remind you that the proposal that Commissioner Goodman is referring to basically said that any commissioner could hold up any matter indefinitely. So that's why you and I did not vote for it the first go-around.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thanks for the addition.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Actually, I believe I said two or more commissioners. Two or more and had to explain their reasonings. Part to be accountant and avoid an arbitrary claim, but it would take two or more commissioners.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: That's for another day I guess.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I move approval. Are we ready for a motion?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I have one further question. We're talking about creating a document that would have certain information redacted. But would it be subject to a FOIA request?

>> It could be subject to a FOIA request. I imagine that there would not be a whole lot of difference between what we would redact as a matter of privilege and commission policy and what would be provided under FOIA. But again, we haven't sat down with one and thought that out. I don't think there would be any daylight there, but there could be.

>> Another point. The amendment. Any characterization of the basis of the holdover, OGC would not second guess, question, it would be the reason by the commissioner if provided. But I don't want OGC in the business of trying to characterize the reason for holdovers.

>> I agree with that.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: And I just want to be clear that those reasons would be tied to the commissioners who are articulating them. Frequently we disagree on whether holds are warranted or not.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: All right. Madam Vice Chair?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I move approval of agenda document 17-53 B. With the amendment on Roman 2 BJ2J. And add the language information by the requester and any pertinent information provided by the name of the person holding the matter over.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: And also the inaction should be -- the word "inaction" should be inaction on the second line up on page two.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Yes, that as well, too.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Can I suggest a friendly amendment? It might be simpler just to say -- I've already forgotten what you said. But either by or from. I can't remember which preposition was being used. That or those requesters? By those requesters?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Those requesters?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: That or those requesters. Since it could be one or more.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: It says the names of the requesters.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I thought it would be simpler.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: The names are listed already.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Whatever you want.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: It probably would be simpler, but let's just keep it the way that we proposed it.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Are we ready to vote? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it unanimously. Anything else?

>> We have the elections of officers next year.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I move approval of agenda document 17-53-A, which are the meeting dates for next year.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: All in favor? Aye.

>> Aye.

>> The ayes have it unanimously. We'll be back at 2 o'clock. We can talk. But we'll give an answer on that AO.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: So we'll come back into open session at 2 o'clock.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Come back into open session at 2 o'clock.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Okay.

>> Testing the captioning. (Reconnected) (Standing by) (Standing by)

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Now resuming the open session. It was continued since this morning. We're now on the issue of advisory opinion number 2017-12 with the discussion that we would see if we could try to reach some kind of a point of view that would meet the satisfaction of all of us. And so we went to lunch instead. I'm just kidding. We did go to lunch. I had proposed something to look at, which would basically be a footnote. In the footnote it said they had different points of view, some of which could be identified. It would assume that we would amend draft A as indicated previously and agenda draft B, both of which we voted upon at the open meeting. But at this point it doesn't look like those are the requisite. Garner five votes anyway. But I'm just throwing out some thoughts for discussion. Anybody want to add to it? Commissioner Weintraub?

>> I want to make my colleagues know we're in the process of making lieu a version of draft A, which is the exact thing we voted on, so at least there would be a clean copy of that. And we could at least avoid the issue of there being two drafts, except one of them wasn't exactly the draft that got voted on. And I think that's going to, as you know, it always takes a little bit of time to make a document blue. But I think that might help to alleviate some of the confusion. And as I said earlier, I'm happy to, on the one hand, everyone has voted for a draft that expresses the conclusion that the ads have to include the disclaimers. So in some sense the requester has an answer. It's not expressed in a single document, so I think there is certainly some guidance as to what the views of the commission are. I'm happy to work with my colleagues to see if we can get to single document, but I don't think we're there yet. As I said earlier, writing on the fly and trying to pass language back in the middle of a meeting is not a good process for ending up with a result that everyone feels comfortable in the end and doesn't wake up the next morning saying oh my gosh, we should have changed the result to that.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: We have done this before. Maybe the results weren't perfect, but at least we got a result here. My only point on this is you would like to have a document that you can actually say we made a decision. And from then on, and enough notice to know that there are other points of view out there that weren't unanimous. We got four votes, though. It seems to me if there's a way to express that in a more acceptable point of view. And most of that is just to give notice in this sentence. This is just one sentence that there's other ideas out there. The two agenda documents as the content of our various views. I didn't want to have that misunderstanding that this is a composite of all thinking on it from the commissioner level. So I used the word some. Some of which can be identified in agenda document one and two. So it's clear. Read it and watch it and read it and think about it. There could be additional embellishments or clarifications from just those two documents of themselves. Because they never are exactly are the way, perfection. Let's put it that way. Say the word rationale different. Different rationales, some of which can be something like that. Vice chair?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to vote for your proposal.

>> Mr. Chairman, I would too.

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I thought about it over lunch and saw you repeat it here. I think the language you came up with was a very good attempt to bridge all the different concerns and I could support that too if there were a motion made.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I would prefer not to vote on it today. I would prefer to make the document that the chairman and I already voted on, to make that blue as we voted on it, so we could have a clean draft and it wouldn't be confused by it. I want -- Ah. In some ways this would take me back closer to your original footnote. But I don't want it to be unclear that, which draft I supported. I don't want to suggest that there was some consensus on draft B. I definitely do not agree with that. If I were to go down this road I would support greater clarity on which draft was supported.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I'm with you on that. Madam Vice Chair?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: And perhaps we could include a footnote. I know you're getting your document blue right now. We could do the vote and I believe that would be a technical conforming change to add the number of the document that will be blue in the next few minutes. We could do both of those things.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I think if we're going to say we voted for that document, I think we actually have to vote for that document.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Let's get the document amended, document A, so we have that behind us. Would you like to make a motion for that to amend it? You would amend draft A. I guess it never went blue is the concern?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: We already voted for it. We amended it at the table. But in order for somebody to track that if they were looking back later, they are going to have to check the cert or listen to the statement. I didn't realize because I didn't get your draft C until we walked into the meeting that this was going to be an issue, or I would have done this before we came in today. I thought we could just amend it at the table at the time. But that has now created an area of confusion that I think I would want to see alleviated before we vote on anything. And I think, as I understand it from counsel, I think we have to actually vote on that document.

>> We already voted.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Yeah, we already voted.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: But that document wasn't in front of us.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: How do we get it done? That's the question. How do we get it done now?

>> Well it's in the process of being made blue as we speak, I think.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Draft A1?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: It doesn't exist yet.

>> The problem is you don't technically need to vote again on the motion that has already been made. The problem is your vote certification doesn't reflect that it was draft A1. So the paper trail concern is still not looped altogether.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I think the question of whether it passed or not is a matter of preference as to which document it is.

>> My answer is it doesn't have to be, but if you're trying to link up all the steps, the certification isn't A1.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: We can't say we voted for draft A1, because technically speaking we didn't. Although it will reflect the text we voted for.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: So then why can't you say the first A, if it's going to reflect the text that you voted for.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: It won't. Because the first Draft A was amended at the table. It's not going to be the same document.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: When we vote on a document and you say oh, we want to change this one word, you're saying the motion says that.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: If we adopt it, then there's a final version of that and it reflects the changes. In this case there won't be a final version of it because we didn't create the document.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Do we need a motion to do that? Or has it been done already? There's a motion going on blue.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I think what we would need to do to clean it up at this point, and if I knew we were going to have a draft C that would refer to these documents, I would have done it before the meeting. But I didn't know that. There may be other ways of doing this. But one way of doing it would be to move to reconsider the vote on draft A and then have a new vote on draft A1, but we have to wait until that document is on blue and it's in front of us before we can do that. Having said that, I personally would like a little bit more time to think about the language.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: To think about which language?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: The language that is being proposed in draft C.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: The language about the expressed version rationales?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Yeah, it was handed to me five minutes ago and I would like to think about.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Well it's the same sentiment that we've been talking about since this morning.

>> Actually, since last night.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: For a while now. If we can't agree on a couple of words.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Well there must be some words that work. I see the point.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I would like more than five minutes to think about it, though.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I think we've had more than five minutes.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: So are we using the word "rationale" instead of "points of view"?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: I think that was your change, Steve.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I'm looking at a draft in front of you. It's not the blue document that everybody has.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I apologize.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and Commissioner Petersen for offering three or four, we're going on four constructive solutions to this. All of which, some of which are more explicit and cite the actual documents in the record. Commissioner Petersen offered to not even cite those documents but reflect that there were drafts in existence. I just would like to thank you for trying to get the consensus position, to get Mr. Pudner to a consensus yes. I take that Mr. Pudner's request is to serve a broader public purpose. Mr. Pudner, you do walk away with a yes. I think your attorneys are fairly capable of taking the two drafts to see where the commission is on the issue. That in some shape or form this disclosure information is going to be required in your Facebook ads. And I just want to thank you for trying to get there. My time is limited today. And it doesn't look like we're going to get there. And so I just wanted to express those thoughts that I think there has been a yeoman effort at compromise here. And when one commissioner doesn't want to compromise, there's just not going to be one.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: What about the idea of saying distilling it down one more way and rather than reaching a decision after the period to say commissioners hold different rationale, or some of the commissioners. Let's try it this way. The commissioners hold different rationales regarding their respective votes. Comma. Some of which can be the two agenda items voted on during the meeting.

>> That's fine with me.

>> Mr. Chairman, it's fine with me.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: It's a little bit not as quite as messy, but it gets the point across in short sentences. What does it take to get it on blue these days?

>> The staff that usually takes care of that has been waiting throughout the afternoon. He stepped out for lunch.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: So it's not in the hopper yet?

>> It should be within the half hour, twenty minutes.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Commissioner Goodman has to leave. Is there a way to reach a consensus on this kind of language and know in advance that we can support that when it does go on blue. In that regard.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: We can't vote on the document if it's not in front of us. It's not in front of us.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I'm sorry. We can vote on Draft C as edited on the table.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Not if it refers to a document that's not in front of us.

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: It could say draft A as amended, and then it could say paren subsequently released as draft D. A2 or A whatever that document. Because we're not going to vote again on that document. We've had the vote on that document as amended. So we're not anticipating another vote. If you're worried about what we're citing, we can arrange the proper citation for that.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: That's what I'm unclear on. I don't think we could just swap out the document and say --

>> COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: The proper citation would be draft A as amended and then you could put paren subsequently provided or made blue as draft or whatever the new notation is.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Does that work?

>> We're all shaking our heads yes. So we're going to go with yes that works. The record is sufficiently clear and it is identical in substance to the motion originally taken. -- --

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I think we have it. Commissioner Weintraub, do you want to read it?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Yeah. Apologies to everyone. Because I think it would have been a lot better to not do this in the middle of the meeting. But sometimes the sausage gets made in public. All right. This is really kind of an amalgum of what everyone has thrown at one point or another. We take draft C. On line 22, we would end the sentence at the end of that line, advertising period. Delete the rest of that paragraph, lines 23 to 25. Put a footnote at the end of that sentence. Advertising period. We're back to the footnote. It would read in reaching this conclusion the commissioners relied on different rationales, some of which are reflected in. And then we go to the text of the footnote that was originally in draft C. Because if we're going to go down this road, I would rather have more clarity rather than less clarity about who voted for what. With the change where it now says agenda document 17-59-A, it would read 17-59A1, which would be the new blue document that would reflect the text that Chair Walther and I voted for. I'm asking the staff if we can do it that way. Does that work?

>> Is it public n now?

>> She's making copies right now. And if we're going to do it, we need to do a late-submitted document.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: That makes sense. I just want to get clarification from counsel. Okay.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: They're going to be made right now.

>> Go ahead.

>> I don't think that a late-submitted document is necessary. And this is splitting the hair pretty fine here. You aren't actually considering draft A1. You are considering draft C as amended. And you are directing the secretary to make draft A1 public, and you're citing it in a footnote, but you're not actually going to consider and vote on Draft A1.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: But the footnote would include our votes for the text that is embodied in A1.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: So the actual vote would be reflected in the footnote.

>> So the plan is to vote on document A1?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: We can if you say we need to. What I want is a clean document.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I guess there is a question to make it sound like there is a vote in advance.

>> I think, and I don't have the language in front of me, but it seemed the way you read the footnote, it sounded to me that you would accomplish that in reaching this conclusion commissioners had different rationales, some of which are reflected in documents.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Yeah, but the documents would have a parenthetical after them that would reflect who voted for what.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Document A1, supported by and document B supported by so and so.

>> If you were going to be absolutely accurate, you would need to vote on A1. If you figured it was close enough and people could figure it out --

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Let's do it the right way.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: It looks like we may actually have the blue document.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Let's just do it the right way.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Are you saying it would be cleaner if we reconsidered the vote on A and revoted it?

>> I think that would probably be the cleanest thing would be to reconsider the vote on A and then vote A1.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: And then we wouldn't need a motion for the late-considered document.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: It would need to be made by someone who voted for it.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: On the prevailing side? It didn't prevail.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: You have to take your vote back.

>> One moment.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: (Laughing)

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Hey, we're on a roll!

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Are we prepared to retract document A?

>> One minute, Mr. Chairman.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: We'll still have four votes.

>> The motion to reconsider can only be made by a member on the prevailing side. That would mean since the motion failed, it would need to be a member who voted against it.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Do I have a motion?

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the vote that was made with respect to agenda document number 17-59A.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thank you. All in favor?

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed? None. The ayes have it unanimously. Commissioner Goodman to post a vote maybe later.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: We need a late-submitted document motion now.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Madam vice chair?

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: So moved.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: (Laughing) Good enough for me.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Good enough for me, too. Call the question?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Seriously? All in favor?

>> Aye,

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed? None. It's unanimous with time left for Commissioner Goodman to vote. Commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I move approval of a proposed answer to advisory answer question rest 2017-12 from Take Back Action fund as reflected in Agenda document number 17-59-A-1.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: All in favor? Aye.

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> Opposed?

>> No.

>> No.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Okay. Right now we're deadlocked.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: A tie definition, it will fail. Now that we've done all that, do I need to repeat the motion? Did I make the motion before?

>> I don't believe you made a motion.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Again, how about this. And you tell me if this motion works. I move to approve an amended version of Draft C of the response to advisory opinion request 2017-12 from Take Back Action Fund as set forth in agenda document 17-59-C, and as amended as I previously described at the table.

>> That motion is in order.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Thank you. Where would we be without you?

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: For sure. Prepared to vote? Aye.

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed? None. The ayes have it. We leave space for Commissioner Goodman.

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Thank you for your patience.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thank you for your patience. You have it. All right. We now proceed for election of officers. Let me just say as I step down from this position, it's been a very enjoyable year. The usual ups and downs and frustrations and that kind of thing. But overall, I completely enjoyed it. I want to thank my commissioners who are working on these matters, and as we all know we have different points of view. But we ultimately inch ahead most of the way, most of the time, to get the job done for the public. So I consider this a very good year in that regard. I have the utmost respect and affection for the staff. They work so hard for us and they do not get the kind of recognition they're entitled to get. But at this particular moment I would like to say one more time it's really been quite great working with staff throughout this whole year. Commissioner and Madam Vice Chair for a few minutes.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say it's been a pleasure working with you this year. I enjoy our chats on the substance and talking about kids and grand kids and hunting and fishing trips. Wyatt graduated from high school in June and he started college in California. Just finished his first semester I think yesterday or today. So we're all proud of Wyatt and glad he is enjoying his school so far. Steve is always a true gentlemen and he is always willing to listen to the other side. And I'm always trying, trying, and trying, but I pretend like I have some success, but the truth is there is not a whole lot. But at least he is always willing to listen and consider the other side. I appreciate that very much. He and his staff, as I said, have been great to work with. Thank you to Tom, Shana, and Shelly. I don't know if Shelly is here. But thank you so much guys for everything throughout the year. Thank you so much, Steve. We have a little something from you from the commissioner. My understanding is that the last time you were there you didn't get a gavel. I hope that's true. Just say you didn't have one.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: I didn't have one. (Laughter).

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: We got a gavel for you with the FEC seal on the front. It's not engraved, but etched with your name on there. Your own gavel to keep with you always so you can pretend to be gaveling in meetings whenever you think that is appropriate. Thank you very much.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thank you very much. That's beautiful. I didn't mention in particular my staff, and I think that is a real oversight. But between Tom and Shelly and Shana, I'm a hard person I know to work for sometimes. And you always hung in there and have been the best and provided the best when I needed it. I appreciate your loyalty and hard work. And it's been really quite good to work with all of my staff. And even the commissioners, I would love to make comments, but like Matt is the ultimate gentleman. I told at the outset I was kind of afraid of Caroline. I was bracing myself for her. It still worked out pretty darn good. Ellen is always by my side, but about half the time doesn't agree with me. (Laughter). But still we're philosophically aligned in most respects. And of course Lee has been great to work with. So diligent about the way he takes in these cases and really works them up on his own and comes up with some really innovative thought I think has always been really helpful for us. Commissioner Weintraub?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always like to find common ground and agree with Commissioner Hunter, currently the vice chair. I want to particularly acknowledge your dedication to the mission of this agency. You came out here these many years ago from Reno. And sometimes I think you regretted that. (Laughter). But you really have been stalwart in your dedication to the transparency of this agency and also the wellbeing of the staff who I know you hold in very high regard. And you have been a champion on trying to improve professional development opportunities for the staff and have really cared about them a lot. And I also want to personally thank Tom Anderson and Shana and Shelly, your tireless staff who have, without whom we never would have gotten through this year.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thanks for the kind words. That's very much appreciated. This is quite a nice gift. Very special. Wyatt will love it. I can see him banging the gavel already. Commissioner Petersen?

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I just want to associate myself with the remarks that the vice chair and Commissioner Weintraub just said. I couldn't agree more. I have had the privilege of serving in a chair and vice-chair relationship with you on two different occasions. When you were the chair and when I was the chair. When we were operating in that capacity or run of the mill commissioners. It has always been an honor to work with you and I appreciate your professionalism and the dignified manner that you go about your work. But I most appreciate your friendship. I have always enjoyed the genuine nature of your personality and just the sincerity that you have always demonstrated in all of your interaction. And thank you for the dedication that you have demonstrated this year as chair and I look forward to continuing to work with you going forward. And again, just thank you for everything that you've put into it. I think we say it every year. The chairmanship brings on a lot of responsibilities and very few perks, and there is a certain amount of burden that goes along with it. And it's a real testament to your leadership that you've been able to accomplish a great deal. And do it without buckling under the pressure that is sometimes placed upon you. So congratulations.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thank you very much. So we come to an election of officers. Anybody willing to run? (Laughter). Commissioner Petersen?

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I would like to make a nomination. It is my privilege to nominate Commissioner Weintraub to be commission vice chair in 2018. We all know, well maybe not everybody knows, so I'm going to give just a brief recap of the distinguished career that Commissioner Weintraub has had. She is a graduate of Yale and also Harvard Law School. And she has a very distinguished career before she joined the commission. At the House Ethics Committee and also as counsel. But notwithstanding all the achievements that she has had professionally and academically, I know her true pride is her family. She and her husband are the proud parents of two children, one of which is currently in China teaching English. She had the opportunity to reconnect with her daughter and travel around and experience the country with her daughter. I know that was a special time. And I still think I've only gotten a sliver of the travelog that you enjoyed while there. But it sounds like it was a wonderful experience to be in a different country, but more importantly to reunite with your daughter. And it's obvious, it says a lot about a parent to see what your children achieve. And her children have been volunteers in many different foreign countries to serve those who are underprivileged and help those who are, you know, we enjoy so much in this country. And they're willing to go over and live in less than ideal circumstances in order to help those who are living in less than ideal circumstances. And I think that speaks highly of Ellen's character that she has raised daughters who have been so willing to commit to service of that sort. So I think that she is well qualifieded to be Vice Chair begun. I'm not sure if she is looking forward to the experience.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: (Laughing)

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: But again, just as she is willing to serve, I appreciate Commissioner Weintraub's willingness to serve. And if now would be the appropriate moment, I would be happy to make a motion for Commissioner Weintraub to be Vice Chair in 2018.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: All in favor?

>> Aye

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I abstained. So we don't actually know if I'm going to win it or not.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: For the record, I voted in favor, the vice chair voted in favor. And Chairman Petersen voted in favor and we assume that Commissioner Goodman will do the same shortly. Congratulations!

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: It may be premature, but thank you. Would youentertain another motion?

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: Before I make my motion, I would like to thank Commissioner Petersen. I appreciate what you said because there is nothing that makes me prouder than the adults that my children have become. So moving on, I would like to make a motion to nominate the next chair of the commission for 2018. 2018 will mark Caroline Hunter's 10th year with the Federal Election Commission. I'm not sure she wants me to bring that up. It will be a busy year indeed. We've got a lot on our enforcement docket as documents produced by the chairman have shown. We anticipate more challenging advisory opinion requests and we've got the rule-making project that we're starting. And I know that she has plans for more rule-making projects and I'm looking forward to that. And I hope we will all be working together hard to protect our elections from foreign interference in part through that rule-making project. This will be Caroline's second turn as Chair of the FEC. And the last time she was chair of the FEC, I was also the Vice Chair. So this is as the chairman might say not our first rodeo. So I know she is qualified to do this because she's done it before. Now interestingly enough, the last time I was in the position of nominating Caroline for a leadership position, it was the last, not this past time, but the last time she was Vice Chair at the end of 2010, which was a banner year because it was the first time we had an all-female leadership team at the commission. I know there's a lot of people in town these days and throughout the country who think we need more women in leadership positions. So I'm here to say here at the FEC we got you covered! So this will be the third time that we have an all-female leadership team at the commission. So now it's becoming sort of no big deal anymore. Caroline also has a long roster of distinguished positioned that she held before. She served as Vice Chair of the U.S. Assistance Commission, she also served as associate council and deputy council at the republican national committee. She graduated cumlaude from the University of Memphis and has a B.A. from her beloved Penn State. She is a dedicated mom of two incredibly lovely daughters. As people in the building know, one of my favorite days at the commission is take your kids to work day. My kids used to love to come. Since my youngest just started graduate school, they're a little bit old for it now. But I remember when Caroline started bringing her lovely daughters, it was very nostalgic for me because I remember how much my daughters loved coming and it was a pleasure to see your daughters. I remember the first one fell on a meeting day, which was always a bit of a challenge. And you decided every single kid who came had the chance should have the chance to bang the gavel. I thought it would be mayhem. In her organized fashion, she had her staff line them up and they all came up and it was very efficient and every little kid got to bang the gavel and every one of them had this brilliant smile on their face. They enjoyed that moment so much. Some of them shyly tapped it and some of them whacked it so hard we thought the gavel was going to break. Maybe that was just Reggie.

>> That likely was the case. (Laughter).

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: In any event, that was a very fond moment for me and it exemplifies something that Caroline and I have in common. We're both moms and we love our kids and kids in general. I know people often talk about the relationships here. And I think it's important to note that we do talk about our families and our vacations and share movie reviews and have a lot of civil conversations that get away from some of the tensions that sometimes people think because that's the only think they see that that is the only thing there is. So I guess Caroline's daughters are a little too old and much too cool to come in and bang the gavel on take your kid to work day anymore. But I'm sure they're not too cool to be proud of their mom for her leadership at this agency. So it is my pleasure to place the name of Caroline C. Hunter in nomination to be chair of the Federal Election Commission for 2018.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Thank you very much. A very nice motion. All in favor?

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> CHAIRMAN WALTHER: Opposed?

>> In the 8th grade I didn't vote for myself and I lost the election by one vote. So I learned since then if you can do it, you can vote for yourself. I think Lee will vote for me, too. So I'll be okay one way or the other. But thank you for that nice motion.

>> COMMISSIONER WALTHER: I do have this little item here. Matt gave me this. I wasn't sure what it meant. But it looks like somebody who is troubled and he is trying to resolve the difficulties of being whatever that person is, in this case being the chair of the commission. And then last year, maybe it was you that added that?

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I think it was former Commissioner Ravel.

>> COMMISSIONER WALTHER: The symbolism.

>> COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: You should be able to tell easily what I added to it.

>> COMMISSIONER WALTHER: Not to be used for bribing. Over the Dodgers.

>> COMMISSIONER WALTHER: But I have my own, too. I thought when people are really troubled and things are tough and they can't get along very well, you go to a rodeo. And so I have the Reno Rodeo. You should go if you have any questions about having a good time. It's home to me. My mom worked for the first Reno Rodeo back in 1936 and we've been going to the Reno Rodeo ever since. This is for you.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Thank you, Steve. It's very impressive looking. I'll put it here for everyone to see. And thank you Ellen for your nice motion. I appreciate it.

>> COMMISSIONER WEINTRAUB: I also want to compliment your very hard-working staff and say that I'm looking forward to working with entire Hunter office.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Thank you. They are terrific. Thank you for mentioning them. I echo that for sure. Thank you. I look forward to working with all of you next year and all of the very capable staff at the FEC. As somebody mentioned, this is my second time doing this. As Petersen, it's a job that adds a lot of responsibilities without a lot of perks, but I'm looking forward to it. There are a lot of challenges coming up and we will tackle them as best we can together. And as Ellen said, we don't agree on everything, but there are a lot of management things that we have agreed on in the past. And I hope to continue to do that working with her next year. I thank all of the dedicated staff here at the FEC and I look forward to working with you next year.

>> COMMISSIONER WALTHER: Thank you very much. Well I think that wraps it up. Are there any administrative matters?

>> There are none sir.

>> COMMISSIONER WALTHER: So the meeting is wrapped up. Thank you very much. We'll be behind you.

>> COMMISSIONER HUNTER: Thank you.