This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on March 24, 2022. This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission. __________________________ Thank you. Good morning. We open the meeting of the Federal Election Commission for Thursday, the 24th of March, 2022 will come to order. We have some late submitted documents, Commissioner Broussard ? Good morning, Mr. Chairman, my movement is considering to -22 draft notices of disposition and determine pursuant to 11 CFR section 2.7 D 1. Business requires when no earlier public announcement most possible. Thank you very much Commissioner Broussard . Let me know for the record the vice chair is unable to attend this morning's meeting. I will have the opportunity to vote on these matters at a later date. [ Indiscernible ]. Is there any discussion of Commissioner Broussard's motion? Seen none. All in favor aye. The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you very much. As was noted, the first item on the agenda is the draft notice of disposition and reg number 2015-04. Counselor? Thank you, chairman Dickerson and good morning commissioners. Before you is agenda document number 22-10-A notice of disposition. June 2015, the commission received two petitions for rulemaking. One petition Westrum make your laws pack Inc. and make your laws advocacy Inc. The second petition Ray Coleman and public citizen. Oath positions as the commission to revise existing regulations and issue new regulations in response to the Supreme Court's decision and Citizens United vis-ˆ-vis. July 2015 the commission published a notification of availability seeking public comment on the petitions , and in response the commission received over 11,000 comments. After considering the comments, the commission voted in December of 2015 on a motion to initiate a rulemaking. Three commissioners voted to initiate a will marking and three voted against because the Accra fire requires an affirmative vote of at least four commissioners to take action to amend regulation or issue new regulation, the draft notice of disposition would notify the public the commission is not initiating a new rulemaking in response to the petitions. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much, counselor. Any questions? [ Indiscernible ]? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know some people consider this a housekeeping matter. But I would love the opportunity. The Council accurately described the petitions coming from both [ Indiscernible ] and the public citizens advocacy group. But they actually started with an early commission that attempted to be filed by my colleague [ name unknown ] out of frustration with the commission's inability, it seemed, to move forward to advance what we believe the most important issues [ Indiscernible ] with the citizens United decision. And very interesting meeting, our colleagues told us we were not persons for purposes of the act and we could not file the petition. That is what prompted the group to file this petition that largely aired the commission injure -- agenda put forward. This petition is one where the residents would be leading the issues that are raised in it the more important issues that they commission continues to grapple with. And raise issues that are fairly regulated under the Citizens United and consistent with that decision. The petition to address coercion , coordination, disclosure, and the following actions [ Indiscernible ]. Although there was, indeed, a vote on this in 2015. We have not had a decision in quite a long time. I do not believe, is because the commission wants voted not to insure the rulemaking, does not mean we are barred from initiating that rulemaking ever again from here or beyond. So, on the subject that seemed ridiculous because things change. Right after Citizens United, one of my colleagues attempted to initiate a rulemaking on some of those same issues. And we were told, at that time, was too soon, was to new and we needed marks's to see how the world would evolve in the wake of the Citizens United. What practices would evolve, and how people would accommodate to the new regime. It was to early. In 2015, without had a few years of experience. And commissioners were still unwilling to support launching the rulemaking. So, here we are in 2022, 12 years out and Citizens United, and we still have not done any rulemaking to address the ramifications of that decision. Which obviously, was just shattered every way the political world would operate. And waited gender all sorts of new practices. I'm not saying that everything has happened since then has been bad. But it certainly has been different are rules, I believe, are not written for the world of Citizens United super PACs and what has happened since then. Including the explosion of activity on the Internet. Our rule going back practically a century. The ruling coordination were designed in 2002 , in order with the [ Indiscernible ] law, and a lot has happened in the last 20 years. The facts have changed and the laws have not kept up. Very important for the national March and Daschle intelligence reporting on foreign threats to the 2020 U.S. election. Remember judgments including that Russia and Iran carried out separate influence operations designed to affect certain presidential candidates. Countries read false information and maligned public confidence in the process of results pick in Cuba and Venezuela took steps to influence the election. The U.S. are consistent Russian cyber [ Indiscernible ] in 2016. All this has happened since 2015 and we last looked at these petitions. These were consorted efforts by foreign nationals [ Indiscernible ] jurisdiction the expenditure as any purchase payment distribution, loan, advance, gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing election for federal office. Federal law bars foreign nationals for making such expenditures. There's been a lot of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the definition of expenditure , and it has been narrowed in the area of U.S. citizens trying to express themselves. Under the First Amendment. However, in June of 2020, the Supreme Court ruling was added a OSI too and has a lot of [ Indiscernible ] in it. As a matter of American constitutional law, foreign citizens, outside U.S. territory, do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution. So, while the expenditures were narrowed to protect the rights of American citizens, the Supreme Court would not have to worry about that when we are looking at how to regulate foreign nationals outside of U.S. territory that might be influencing U.S. elections. Again, there is reasons of opinion would have a bearing on how we regulate the scope about the statute and [ Indiscernible ] new this is where the rulemaking would and should sorted out. That's just for nationals. Coordination , as I said, coordination rules were made in 2002 four Citizens United and super PACs before the exclusion on the Internet that really affected coordination and the rules. Because frankly, they do not hold up under the pressure of all of this new activity. They are like Swiss cheese and the holes are bigger than the chief is. We seriously need to revise these rules [ Indiscernible ] everything that has happened. We continue to get complaints. Excuse me. On a regular basis. And under our regulations, there is rarely anything that managed to get the votes moving forward. And I choose, sometimes, to find legal justification for moving forward that looks like coordination . And yet, coordination leading to participation that has evolved. So, we almost never get any action on any of these complaints we continue to get. We see corporations flex their muscles with activities of employees. Activities that regulations don't really have the wherewithal to address , and the votes to address under them. There has been $1 billion in tarp money spent on politics. The disclosure rules, which were in the Citizens United, the concept robustly was enforced by the Supreme Court. And yet, we are's still having $1 billion in dark money and every single election. More of it was raised on both sides of the aisle breaking the rules because of the situation. So, in my view, this rulemaking is even more important than it was when initiated the petition. Of course, it doesn't [ Indiscernible ] any writing of regulations . What it does, is kickoff the process where we can open up public comment, and get public comment. Indeed, in these petitions went out for public comment in 2015, we get over 11,000 comments. They were highly supportive of initiating rulemaking. And indeed, we have a whole slate of commissioners and new ideas to take into account. And new thoughts that could really benefit, that could benefit the agency and the public considering new rules. So, with everything that has happened in the last 20 years since we revised our coordination regulations, the last dozen years since the citizens United decision came down, I think we are long overdue to initiate the rules on exactly these topics. On disclosure, foreign nationals, coordination, coercion and claims to generate [ Indiscernible ] we do just that. Thank you, Commissioner. [ Indiscernible ]. As was noted, vote was taken on this matter seven years ago. The term of a Commissioner is six years. I wasn't here. Two members of the commission more. One of whom approved [ Indiscernible ] picked this is an effort by the new crop of Commissioner that Commissioner Wenzinger referred to in the bipartisan effort to clear the backlog that has been created over 10 years. Of emotional and unproductive in fighting. With respect, this matter should have been closed when the commission failed, by statute to adopt and open rulemaking. That does not prevent anyone from taking advantage of any of the points you have made, Commissioner Weintraub , to present to us the petition which we would act on and enforce. But, the public is entitled to tonality and predictability, at some point. Not measured in years . And to have a commission that works on my work in front of it, rather than refighting votes on the Obama administration. So, with respect, I do not think that is the appropriate course. I agree with my colleague, Commissioner Broussard, who sits with me on the regulation committee. Clearing this backlog and allowing us to move forward is the better approach. And I will support her. Mr. Chairman? >> Yes. I want to thank you for taking the step of trying to clear the backlog we have, and giving the public the opportunity to know where we stand. I have been here a little longer than you have. It has been six months of chairman, during that time, the issue of this particular rulemaking was never brought to my attention as something that needed to be addressed, as a pressing matter . So, I never put it on an agenda. And, during the past year, it was not brought forward as a pressing matter. And I see this continual effort, by some of our colleagues, who want to hold things open under the guise of, well, we might be able to work on it . We might be able to come to a consensus. We might take a look at it. I think that gives the wrong impression to the folks who look to us for guidance and what to do in the campaign-finance reform reform. People deal best when there is certainty in regulations. I think I closing this particular rulemaking, it gives certainty to those that are regulated by the act , to know what the rules are today. Again, as you said, this process is open and available to anyone that wants to reengage in this process. And if there truly are 11,000 people that are concerned, then I would sixpack by the end of the day today, maybe tomorrow and sometime next week, we would see another petition for rulemaking, with some updated information. As to which direction we might want to go any rulemaking. Again, I thank you for putting this on the agenda. And allowing us to give some certainty to those who are regulated by what we do here at the commission. Commissioner Broussard? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman mentioned, I'm part of the regulations committee. And I will say that I'd did strongly push and bring this to the attention of the regulations committee to move forward with this. I consider this administrative action but in no way to foreclose the additional, new petition, that may be coming in. If there should happen to be one, and the commission, I believe, will consider it a new course of everything I believe Commissioner Weintraub mentioned about the need of it . I concur with. In the effort to preserve the resources of our policy division, who has had these items held over their head for significant period of time, when there other matters they can resolve. I did push this forward, and I did support it on tally. But I will support closing these matters. Thank you. Further discussion? Commissioner Weintraub? I would like to point out, the commissions are not the only way to handle rulemaking. We can do it on our own initiation. We do not have to wait for the petition. These happen to be petitions that raise some of the most compelling issues we ought to be considering in the rulemaking context. So, and it is with all due respect to my colleague, it is not true, that the need for rulemaking in this area has never come up. In fact, I believe, it came up on Tuesday, in our in our most recent meeting, as we were going through the enforcement docket. I said then, and I have said recently, in open and closed sessions, that we really, really need to revise some of these rules, particularly in coordination context. So, the need for these rulemaking goes on. And, you know, we can, we can dispose of this one petition, but it is not going to solve the problem that our, our rules dramatically need to be updated. And we have not done it since Citizens United. I appreciate that, Commissioner. I look forward to your memo . That might start a petition process [ Indiscernible ] procedure. Further discussion? Commissioner Broussard? Mr. Chairman? We recognize Commissioner Broussard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would -- there was something mentioned by both of my colleagues FEC 19. We are now at a new commission comprised of six individuals, which I think, appreciates the opportunity for us to work together. So I do understand Commissioner Trainor's point the commission could do this. But now is the time press to come together to see what we can try to resolve. And this is one of those, as part of the regulations committee, I look forward to working with the chairman to see if we can move forward on this. So, let's continue to work together as a commission, on the points we can agree on. And remember, there is still a lot of work for us to do together. That's all. Thank you. Commissioner Weintraub? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said before, I would make mention the commission role. I would like to take a five minute break to consult [ Indiscernible ] for such a motion. Can we take five minute, Adam chairman Adam Secretary? Yes chairman. >> [ pause ] The meeting is now live. >> Mr. Chairman, we are now live recording and you may reconvene the meeting when regular ready. Thank you the meeting of the Federal Election Commission the 24th of March, 2022. Although it is now 10:34 in the morning. Commissioner Weintraub? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been advised [ Indiscernible ] out of the water. I know the judgment [ Indiscernible ]. This is representing the meeting. I do look forward to that. And to its consideration in the ordinary course. No further discussion? Are their motions? Commissioner Cooksey? Thank you Mr. Chairman. With respect to reg 2012 01 draft notice of disposition, I move approval of agenda document number 22-09-A. >> Thank you very much. Discussion is open. Mr. Chairman -- I believe that's the wrong document. It's 22- -- sorry chair. Mr. Chairman? I'm so sorry. The acting deputy is correct. 22-09-where with item result on tally pick the correct agenda document for 2015-04 is 22 -10-A. Commissioner Cooksey? Thank you to the secretary's office for the correction. I was looking at the wrong item on the agenda. With regard to reg 2015-04, Citizens United 2 draft notice of disposition. I move the truth movable of 22-10-A. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Motion passes with four in favor. FEC Commissioner Broussard, one opposed Commissioner Weintraub . Let us move to the next matter on our agenda. Which is reg 2014 -09. Very similarly situated. Council? Thank you, Chairman Dickerson. November of 2014, the commission received a petition for rulemaking from public citizen, regarding the commission's federal contractor electric CFR part 115. The petition asked that the commission amend its relations regarding federal contractors to include certain factors, for determining use the same corporate family are distinct business entities for purposes of prohibition on contributions by federal contractors. In March , 2015, the commission published a notice of availability seeking public comment on the petition , and in response, the commission received approximately 19,750 comments. After considering the comments, the commission voted in November 2015, on a motion to initiate rulemaking pick three commissioners voted to initiate rulemaking. Three voted against. Because the act requires the affirmative vote of at least four commissioners to take any action to amend the regulation, the draft notice of disposition at agenda document 22-11-A, were denied the petition for rulemaking. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Colleagues? Commissioner Weintraub? Thank you, Esther chairman. This petition concern are regulations on contractors over 80 years under federal law contractors have been prohibited directly or indirectly contribution to any political party, federal candidate or person for any political purpose pick this prohibition serves an important purpose of protecting the merit-based administration of government contracts pay to play insuring personnel involved in decisions are free crime criminal coercion. And we have seen, over the last number of years, including since the petition was last voted on, places that arise, corporations [ Indiscernible ] instructions not involved in decision-making. But were set up boundaries, for regulations that are not inadequate. And perhaps, my colleagues, actually agree with me on this. [ Indiscernible ] corrections holdings, last August . Are Office of General Counsel collected evidence for demonstrating that TCH acted as little more than corporate shell that were government contractors. We had [ Indiscernible ] on that on the bipartisan basis. And yet, that came up again, our current panel of commissioners , our colleague said that, the Office of General Counsel may have been well-intentioned, but absent promo rulemaking there's nothing we can do. It seems to me, formal rulemaking, there seems to be something we need formal rulemaking on. Now, I will not make a motion reinitiate one today because I have been told it is out of order. I will certainly be preparing the event at the meeting of for that in our future. Commissioner? Further discussion? Seeing none. Any motions? Commissioner Cooksey? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to get this one right. With respect to reg 2014-09, federal contractors draft notice of disposition . I move approval of agenda document 22- 11-A. Thank you, Commissioner. Pausing in Claes Council would like to weigh in on the motion. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Motion Passover four impairment Commissioner Trainor, and myself. One opposed, Commissioner Weintraub and the vice chair who is absent. Stuff director? Are the any management or administrative matters. Mr. Chairman, none at this time. Thank you. The meaning stands adjourned. Standby. [ Event Concluded ]