This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on June 8, 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.

Good morning, all. Welcome to the federal election  meeting for the eighth of June,  2022. Have laid some of the  documents.  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I  moved to suspend --  in order that the commission may  consider late submission of agenda  documents, number 22 Dash  19 Dash A  that's one. Also, 22- A1-22- 23-a.  

Thank you  very much, Mr. vice chair. Any further  discussion? All in favor? 
     The motion is carried unanimously.  Thank you very much. The first matter  on our agenda this morning 
     is the expenditure reporting. It's  on our last agenda. We had a presentation  comments and discussion on the matter.  Any further discussion for this  presentation? Counsel?  

Mr. Chairman?  Thank you.  Good morning come commission us. Before you is the draft and final  rule that would conform the independent expenditure reporting regulation for the D.C. circuit and the crew  versus FEC. It was found to be unlawful  under the administrative procedure  act because it contained a phrase  that narrowed the statutory provision  was designed to implement. It struck paragraph of the  regulation that the court validated,  stating the attitude provision remains  in effect. We estimate  the rule will take effect on September  30th. Happy to answer any questions  you may have.  

Thank you, counselor. Colleagues? 
     Any motions? 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move  approval of draft interim final  rule amendment CFR 109.10  E1. Is afoot in the agenda documents,  number 22-18-81.  

Further discussion  for the motion? All in favor?  

Aye.  

The  motion is carried enormously. Thank  you very much, and my colleagues. The next matter in our agenda is  drafted advisory opinion 2022-03. 
     Democracy engine, LLC. Mr. Lamere, from  the office general counting? And  Carol Laham, who was counsel who is available  to answer any questions. Counsel? 
     >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, commissioners. Before you, our  agenda documents 22-20-a. 22-20-A1. Alternate  draft advisory opinion. Responding  to a request from democracy engine LLC. The requester asks,  whether Corporation not operating  to a separate segregated fund, or SSF, may use  the web platform to solicit tracked  contributions from members of Corporation  restricted class, the federal candidates  and political committee. And whether  corporations and a separate segregated  funds may use the requester's platform  to solicit attract contributions, from the public,  Canada and political committees. All draft conclude,  that the proposed activity is not  prohibited conducted by  a separate segregated fund. Two, the proposal is not barred  by the act's prohibition on contributor  data, because the data would be  attained by the record of processes. 
     Three, disclaimers are required  on a customized page on a democracy  engine pot form available to the  public. Revise draft a come up with conclude,  that of corporations not at for  an SSF may not use  the platforms to solicit members  of the restricted class or general  public, because democracy engine's  corporate client  would use the function to facilitate  the making of contributions to candidates 
     and political committees. Draft  be concludes that the corporation  not acting as an SSF  may use democracy engine platforms 
     to solicit members of the restricted  class the general public. Because  the engine would  provide the method of transmitting  the contribution of services and  contributors.  We received one comment on the request 
     -- sorry draft, from the requesters. I would be happy  to answer any questions you may  have.  

College, any discussion or questions  for the Council? Commissioner?  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to get started, since we have  come to for the requester, I would  be interested in your thoughts on  the draft. I understand she  wrote some incomes this morning. To whatever extent she wants provide  additional comments and information for the Commissioner,  I would be interested in hearing  it.  

Thank you very much. Good morning,  commissioners. Thank you for the  opportunity to be here today , to address the request submitted  on behalf of of democracy engine.  Specifically, I want to adjust the  facts. Draft be properly under  constant the facts. We believe it's  this misunderstanding that led to  the divergent opinions. The facts  are as follows. A company  or pack can buy software from democracy  engine , which enables the company to create  a branded website identifying the  candidates the company hopes its  restricted class employees, or general  public if the communications is directed there, will support. The software will also enable the  company to obtain real-time information  on who was responsible and responded  to the suggestion to contribute  to candidates endorsed by the company. Thus, the company, or its pack,  will know how much is raised through  its communications. Either to the stupid class or general public  without waiting for the information to become  part of the public record.  If an individual chooses to make  a contribution, or multiple contributions to candidates  endorsed by the company, the individual  will then contract with democracy  engine in order to make the contributions. And will pay democracy engine  a processing fee for its services. This service provided  to individuals is fundamentally  the same service approved by the  commission, just last year,  and FEC advisory opinion 2021-07. Pack management services. In which  the commission explicitly said was  not facilitation. Thus, democracy  engine carefully conceived its offering to  provide distinct services to the  company, and to the individuals  making direct contributions to the  candidates. Each party is paying  for the services it receives. At  no time does the company touch the  money , or underwrites, and anyway, the  making of the contribution. As a  result, draft be correctly understands  that the company is not facilitating the making of  any contribution. We  therefore urge the commission to  adopt draft be, and we are available  for any further questions.  

Thank you, counsel. Commissioner?  

Thank  you for the presentation. I guess I have a few questions  to clarify some of the facts that  were provided in your request. Let's  compare the services provided  by democracy engine, with the services  provided by platforms like act blue 
     and -- that you cite in your comments  today. The first question is, how is the democracy engine , the user interface for people  who received B's messages from the  corporation, how is it different than contributor or potential contributors  just going to win red or act blue? Is it better for the contributor ? Is it the same? Do they pay the same  fees? How is the democracy engine page difference  or the same as those other platforms?  

I understand the fundamental  difference is that, through act  brew -- when read -- he cannot contribute to multiple  candidates at the same time. Whereas  democracy engine allows you to chat several boxes. If you want to contribute to five  candidate, you can do that. In a  single  transaction and five different transactions. So, I think the  fundamental difference in 
     distance between democracy engine  and act or when read.  

Are the fees and that the  contributor is subject to, the credit  card and processing fees?  

The fees are the  ordinary course of business. Already  approved democracy engine the structure. Presumably, you  already approved the other  free structures.  It's commercially normal fees.  

 Mr. Chairman? Can you explain  in further detail what exactly the  corporations are  -- how they are paying democracy  engine? Is it just a fee for the  establishment of the website, and  they have a link to it? So it's  a one-time payment? How are payments  made from the corporation to democracy  engine?  

I believe the engine initially  pays an up front fee for the establishment, or the purchase,  of the software. And then, the company 
     can create its own website based  on what democracy engine has provided. But I don't think there are ongoing  fees for the service.  >> Commissioner? 
     

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank  you for some of the facts.  He made mention of comparing this  to Expo and when read. A distinctive difference is this  would allow contributors to give  to multiple candidates at a single  time. Those candidates are selected by the corporation, correct?  

Those of the candidates that would be -- yes. I mean, the  corporation is making a recommendation.  They're not selected by the corporation.  Corporations make recommendations that these are the individuals  that we would like you to contribute  to. But the individuals are choosing whether or not to make  the contributions. So, if  the corporation has, for instance,  10 candidates  on its proposed list of endorsed  candidate, and then the individual  can  choose to give to one, or 10 or  zero.  

Or 11? They can't go to 12 because you don't have 12  on there, you only have 11? Or 10,  whatever the number is. My point  being is they can only select what  is been recommended by the corporation,  is that  correct?  

Those are the only ones available on the website, that's correct.  

One further question if  I may, Mr. Chairman.  It kinda goes to Commissioner --  the corporation  pays democracy engine for a fee  to the service, but all times the engine will charge the customers  the usual and normal rate for the  fee. What is included in the cost  for democracy engine, if you can  explain it again? I know it's for reasonable profit and nobody is  disputing the structure has been consistent  with others approved by the commission.  But what exactly is paid by democracy  engine? Corporation? What  is paid by the individuals making  contributions?  

Democracy engine charges the corporation for  the software  that enables the corporation to  create a customized website that enables the  corporation to identify the candidates for the corporation is endorsing . On the backend, if an individual chooses  to make a contribution, it allows  the corporation to see, and real-time,  who has made  contributions to the candidates. On the other hand, democracy engine charges the individuals  for making the contribution. 
     If an individual chooses to make  a contribution to the candidates , then the individual will be charged  a processing fee consistent with the  previous advisory opinion  that the FEC gave to democracy engine.  There is no change and how that  part of the system works.  

 Commissioner?  

I guess  I will ask the question I asked  earlier. Is there any  benefit to the contributor  to use the democracy engine platform,  versus one of the larger competitors ? Is there anything that you fear, better, simpler, easier , or anything a prospective contributor would  prefer to use the engine over?  

Well -- yeah. The  way I see it's,  the -- the  benefits of the contributor is  that they 
     can make contributions to multiple  candidates at the same time. I think  that's it. I am  trying to see -- if there's any  other differences here.  I, it's just , that's it. You  know? They can't do it. The democracy  engine function, or through  act blue. They can do it  through -- they all provide the  same functionality. To the contributor. 
     

Commissioner?  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's the same to  the contributor, but clearly,  it's the corporation we are looking  at here. The corporation makes the  recommendations. The corporations  also received the benefit of the  data, correct? 
     

I wasn't able to hear that exactly  correct.  

Let me get closer to the mike. So, we understand the contributor  gets the opportunity to select multiple  individuals that are recommended by the corporation . You already agree to that. But,  then, the corporation receives a real benefit because they gets  to collect the data and owns the  data from related to whom it will corporation contribution?  >> According to the regulations of  the FEC, the corporation  can make a communication to his restricted class on any subject  whatsoever. And, corporation can  endorse only certain candidates. That's what's happening here. It's  endorsing certain candidates.  

That  wasn't as this agreement.  It seems to be better for the corporate  entities who go to the engine as  opposed to the contributors. The contributors can only select  what the corporation recommends.  

Yes. The select the  candidates. They do or they don't. 
     That's always the case with the  communication of the sort.  

 Commissioner?  

Thank you. To get down to the brass tacks and looking at  the regulation, the issue seems  to be how we analogize 114.2 -F2 the Internet. And 1.14.2-F rabbits providing materials for  the purpose of transmitting  contributions such as dams, envelopes,  addresses, other  than the corporation or labor organizations SSF or similar items that would  assist in transmitting the Dover  contributions, but not including  providing the address.  The argument is, the engine is basically  an address aggregation collection service, right? It creates  a list of "web addresses " for you to make the  contributions. If the regulation contemplates providing addresses, obviously it contemplates costs associated with collecting  and categorizing and printing out  a piece of paper with the addresses  you can give to respect contributors. What I'm trying to understand  is, is there anything else to  the contributors that is been provided , but flooring the transaction costs  for them making these contributions? Are there fees  subsidized, and is it better and  easier interface? Other things  that are making them have a better  and easier and simpler and cheaper  experience than is the corporation  just sent an email with a list of  other links? Or whatever the case  may be?  

There is no -- yes.  There is no underwriting of the cost of the  contributor. It's not going to be  cheaper to the contributor to do  that. It's  going to pay the same fees they  would pay if they went to the democracy  engine sites, or if they went to  any other site that is a processing  site. Which is what the engine is  doing for these contributors. They are processing a direct  contribution to a candidate. So  they are not getting a cheaper fee because they are using the  democracy engine sites. 
     

I guess I would like to ask policy  whether they agree with the characterization, or what, if any, benefits they  think is been provided to do prospective  contributors through the creation  of these democracy engine websites, customized  websites, for the corporation?  

The benefits of the contributor  is the same  as the benefit of any web processing  service to contributions. I think , I will let the Council  clarified. They might also say be provided  an informational service to the  contributors, to the extent they  want to know who the  corporation endorses. And wants  Tim make contributions  to those individuals. 
     That's a distinct service they get  here. Is also service to the corporation.  For a clarifying question.  

If the corporations  prints out a list of addresses and  says these are addresses with support  if you want to send them contributions, is a corporate facilitation?  

No.  

Thanks.  

Thank you.  Further questions?  

I have one.  I called his discussion with interest.  One of the downsides of being chair,  you kind of have to start back for  a second. My remaining question is something  that the Commissioner alluded to,  which is  the owning of the data on the backend.  I guess my question is is that part  of the provision of the data in  real-time for the corporations?  As a part of the software license? Is there additional and marginal cost of the corporation and benefit  to your client , from the provision of  this information?  

 The latest part of the software  license that the company is paying  for and I would also like to mention that both acts blue and when red, to my understanding, allow the real-time data  as well.  This is already a functionality  that is being provided by these  other services.  

Thank you. 
     Else? I just lost my screen,  so if anybody is dialing in remotely  and seeking recognition, they may  want to do so really quickly.  

Mr. Chairman? Thank you. If  this -- we  have these two divergent advisory  opinion for you . What is the effect of us  having a split both, 323,  on each of those? Or one?  What effect does it have for you? 
     

I  made, a 3-3 opinion is, neither  one has been adopted by  the commission. I mean, there's really not much more to  it than that.  

Perfect. Given we have -- I did not get your comments to literally minutes before we  came on -- I appreciate  the presentation you gave this morning.  And, policy  can give me the exact dates. I  know we need to get you an answer  soon. Would you mind giving us more  time in order to get to the consensus  answer for you? Instead of having these two divergent  answers?  

Well, yes. I  don't mind giving you additional  time. My client, I checked with my client beforehand in  the event you would ask for that , and we can give you additional  time to come up with a consensus opinion. But we  do believe that draft we,  accurately represents the fact and  provides the correct analysis. 
     We urge you to adopt draft to be  at this time.  

Thank  you, Mr. Chairman.  

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank  you to the Council for remarkable  foresight.  Is there any further discussion , motions or requests?  Cooksey?  

 I would like to hold it over , and for policy to seek an appropriate  extension. To support this request. Counsel, how  much time is on the clock?  

The current deadline is, June  14th.  

Okay.  

Can ask  for to look extension.  Two weeks.  

We will endeavor to  get you an answer by our next meeting,  Council.  

Thank you very much.  

Thank you very  much for your attendance, we appreciate  it. It's one of the better parts  of the job. Next matter. Thank you  come again. Next matter  on the agenda is , advisory opinion  --. Ability of counsel on this matter as well.  

Thank you, this  -- good morning customers. Agenda  document 22-21 a is a draft response to the request  submitted by the Jill Stein  for President committee. The  requester is the principal campaign  committee for Dr. Jill Stein, candidate  for the Green party nomination for  president in 2016. The committee  asks various questions concerning  the use of committee funds raised  under the general election in 2016  to pay outstanding Mr. defiance  to the commission, or to make prepayments U.S. Treasury.  The truck concludes that, the committee need not establish a separate  segregated account  for the receipts. Mr. defiance.  The committee may not raise funds this made it as  contributions. Mistreated clients.  The committee may use designated  --. 
     We received no comments on the request  of the draft. I would be happy to  answer any questions you may have. 
     

Thank you, counsel. Always my  apologies.  Thank you, Dr. Stein, and counsel. For your attendance . He is available to answer any  question. Any discussion or questions ? For the office of General Counsel?  Mr. Cooksey?  

Thank you very much. I  thank you for the presentation.  I have a couple questions for the  requester with respect to question  two. In the question about primary contributions being used to be  able to pay the state of violence. 
     Excuse me while polis. The  request  states and describes contributions  that were being designated as primary contributions  and being used to pay for legal  and administrative costs. Can  you say more about these contributions? I think I'm  confused about the characterization  of them as primary, given  the timeline we are on. And how  those contributions are being used  or collect it and designated?  >> I believe  you are muted.  

 Okay. Can you hear  me?  

We can. Go ahead, sir.  

The designation as primary was essentially based on advice of report analysts for the FEC, who  directed the campaign to designate  the contribution and the funds as either general  or primary election. So, we chose to designate them  as primary,  simply for that reason. Because  we had to designate them as something. 
     The funds are primarily used for  ongoing administrative courses to pay the fines and someone to  the desert nation. It doesn't, in  our view, limit the use of paying for  the primary. We are simply a designation that was directed  to make, we are given the choice  between a general or primary election. 
     

If I can add?  I can add to that. Since I  am involved in the filing of  the report  in the past year and a half or so.  And, as Mr. Kresky  said, we are explicitly advised , by the reports requirements,  that when a campaign raises five in the postelection period, because  clearly not primary or general election, yet for the purpose of  adhering to the cumulative limit for any , alternations need to  be as high same election period. We were told basically a dealer's choice  as to which one  to choose. And since our activity  at this.  Is largely with regard to compliance with the federal election law. 
     And the commission regulations.  This is related to the audit in  question surrounding repayment and  someone. It would be appropriate to call them primary. As supposed general. And the cost  themselves largely are that.  They are the legal costs, and they  are also the cost of filing because  the software, we use  a private software company, the  free soft file  does not work for us. We need to  pay a private software company 
     to assist with the filing. That  is essentially the cost that we  need to fund raise for. Those are  considered,  on a somewhat arbitrary basis, primary. 
     

Mr. Chairman?  

If I can ask a  clarifying question, which primary . Do designate which  election-year you use them for?  

That's a very good question.  It's not usual for a campaign to  be operative , six years, after an election.  This is for the election of 2016.  There were the substantial delays  in part 
     for our request for hearing at the  time of our audit was completed.  That was in June of 2019. I'm  sorry, it was completed in April  of 2019. We requested  a hearing according to the deadline  of June the 2019 because  the commission lost core,  essentially for a period of 15 months,  starting a couple months after that there were a  whole series of delays in the process.  This is why we come to be  figuring this out. And seeking clarity  on the nature  of our complaints. How to  come into compliance. And whether  there are repayment  costs that we will be paying. All of it is still in  process. And that is what we need  to raise money in order to  sustain this process. 
     

Dr. Stein, I will say the committee been active six years after the  last election may be more common  than you realize. But I'm interested  in a GC's assessment or response what we heard from  the committee about their choice  in designating contributions. And  whether they could've  designated them for a different  election.  

We cannot comment  on the past action  of what and how these were designated.  Or what they may have been told. One thing to note,  however, is that if committee  has met the outstanding  the primary election, which it  seems like they do,  under this advisory opinion, they  can use those primary  contributions for what is outstanding.  But it also includes, but that the  repayment program,  so, in terms of future looking as  far as the advisory is concerned. Not looking back at  past actions of what the contributions  look like, under the advisory opinion, they can still use the 
     contributions for that is outstanding.  It seems as those payments  and expenses still exist.  >> Thank you, counsel. Colleagues, any further discussion? Any motions? 
     Commissioner Cooksey?  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the  trapped advisory opinion 2022-04, just as a committee, I move approval for documents, which is draft day.  

Thank you, Commissioner.  Any discussion for the commotion? All in favor? Aye  . The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you very much for your attendance. 
     

Thank you.  

Thank you.  

We will move to the falls -- the next final report. It's been held over for previous  meeting on the agenda. Mr. Croghan? 
     

Mr. Chairman?  

Please, take us  away, sir.  

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and  commissioners. Before use proposed  final audit report on the auto division  of Mike Brown for Indiana. The findings consist of  finding one, the statement of financial  activity, finding two, failure to  file 48-hour notices. Disclosure  of occupation and or name of employer. Finding for, receipt of the contributions come along,, and  finding five, disclosure of entries in Canada.  The additional issues consist of  issue one, receipt of conservation and access to limit. An issue to , prohibited --. We are available to answer  any questions. Thank you.  

Thank you very much. Colleagues? 
     

Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is  an unusual audit. I cannot recall  another instance where we had  a situation audit. There was  a Supreme Court opinion that  was pending.  That had the potential to affect one of the findings and proposals. 
     And I completely understand that  my colleagues were exceedingly sensitive to not tread  on either the possibility of that Supreme Court opinion  coming down, or the existence opinion that address the issues. And worse not  staked 
     at the time. Subsequent to the --,  we received an analysis from the  audit division , which the commission did not have  an front of us at the time. We did  not have this detailed breakdown,  which I have put forth for  the commission as  an agenda document today. We did  not have this detailed break the breakdown the division prepared that lays out what  the actual impact,  of the expected decision, which  is not become the actual decision. What the  impact would be on this particular  proposed finding on excessive contributions. As it turns out, there  are 732,000 
     and excessive contributions remaining 
     after the cruise issue is completely  taken off the table. Without  intruding in any way on the decision  and acknowledging the decision,  there's still seven to $32,004-$29 and excessive contributions. We did not have  details or the brick down of the  dollar figure . And I think, because of that unusual  situation, we should at this point include a finding  on those excessive contributions. I think would be irresponsible  to ignore over $700,000 and excessive contributions. I acknowledge it's unusual to be  making a motion to add a finding  at this point in the process, I  checked with our lawyers, and they  say it is permissible to do so. And I checked  with the auditors. I encourage them  to wait in and  giving support adding the finding.  I will make a motion at the appropriate time to try  to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

Thank you Commissioner. Commission  a trainer?  

Thank you. This proposal to add a finding at  this point has the  committee for anybody associated  with it the opportunity to review  it? Do we have any comments from  them? Have they been able to check  the math and numbers associated  with it? Would it be appropriate  for us to do it at this time?  

I'm not aware that the  proposed motion has been presented to the Braun committee. I would  ask Jessica, or  Larry, two-way and on the issue. 
     

Mr. Chairman?  

Go ahead, counsel.  

Thank you. I don't understand  that they --  I believe they were afforded the  document made public.  I would note that the substance  of the motion  that is been discussed, potential  motion, it's in essence  a subparts of what had previously  been proposed. It's also been  been forwarded to  the committee at the early stage. 
     

Mr. Chairman? So we  don't have any specific response from the committee . We don't have specific information where they had an opportunity  to review this particular document. How much time have they been given? 
     

Mr. Chairman?  

Go ahead.  

The committee would not normally  be given an opportunity to respond, even at the ADR M  stage. No, they were not given an  opportunity to respond. They would  not be normally given an  opportunity.  

Mr. Chairman? 
     

Let's take people in order. Miss  Brown?  

I'll be sure  it's repeated, that I'm sure we  will see the same thing. 
     

My apologies.  

No worries. It's a friendly have  a. To thank you,  Mr. Chairman.  

We  provided the committee with the  document. We realize it will  be made of blue, we have not heard  any response from the committee  on this document.  

When did  we provide this to them?  

 Mr. Chairman?  

Please go ahead.  

If I may, are  you able to provide that? I believe it was sometime  last week. But we can look up the  exact date for you.  

Thank you.  

 Mr. Chairman?  

While we wait, --  

I will deferred audit.  But I'm pretty sure it's a topic  of excessive contributions was discussed  with the Braun committee during  the course of the audit. Was it  not?  

It's  on record, yes. Go ahead.  >> Yes, it was discussed with them.  I have the date leave and documents  submitted to the committee on Friday,  June 3rd, at 7:19 a.m.  

A follow-up, if I may. I understand  the excessive contribution finding is obviously discussed. This particular  breakdown in light of the  litigation --?  >> My memory is the position of audit  is the litigation most relevant.  Go ahead.  

 No, we did not discuss the exact  rate down that's in the document. But it's the same process of the  documents he looked at. The same  approach of determining the excessive  amount. In essence, the number was at the  ERM states.  This allows them to reduce the amount.  The concepts and findings were there. Now the committee has this particular  break down.  >> Just to be sure I'm clear, this  particular break down was represented 
     as part of the earlier audit process.  I first noticed the committee received  of the document was last Friday.  

 Mr. Chairman?  

Please.  

That's correct. Friday is where they saw this particular  document. But it's all the same  information with the exception of  the amount being reduced.  

Thank you  not breakdown  person on the document. To 
     

That is correct. It did not include the 732  thousand dollars.  

Thank you.  >> What was the  committee's response is that particular  find it? If we rely on  the fact that the previous the respondent?  >> 
     Mr. Chairman? So,  the committee for the of what we found was not an  issue. At the time, the committee found some documentation. But was  stated the previous trigger did  not properly  follow procedures sending out letters that were needed. The committee stated that -- start sending out  some of the forms. 
     

Thank you.  

Further questions? I have one. It's a general question to probably  the general counsel. Expertise can  answer. I think the point of this  is an unusual situation. The question is, we can directive  somebody, which is supposed to govern  the process, --. 
     >> I read  it last night but did not see it.  Maybe somebody can put me through  it?  

Mr. Chairman?  

Please, go  ahead.  

I do not believe that there are  the somebody went into that level  of detail. There are a lot of aspects of  more unusual audit processes that  are not specifically covered in  directive 70. But directive 70 , and operation with others, and others he mentioned , would be how the blessed typical  audits  might proceed.  

I respect the fact this is a list typical  audits. It's an excellent turn of  phrase. He is at least what I saw under  directive somebody. To preview,  I understand  disregard the procedure. At the bottom  of page three of the 70 , notes  we take a vote on the bar. There is the draft  circulating consistent with the  vote of the commission. 
     We take a vote that we have something consistent with the voting commission. I don't want to characterize it . It doesn't  include the initial procedure. 
     Accordingly, it doesn't seem to  be contemplated or related consistent with the principles that can be  processed and noticed.  Given the the. 
     

Mr. Chairman? I would suggest directive somebody at the bottom  of page four that addresses the  final audit report, which is what  happens when we are trying to get  to today. It  says that if the bar is approved, it will be  made into the bar. It will be placed  on a agenda if not. Although Directive  70  doesn't specify that the 
     normal rules and conduct of open  meetings for such items  apply, I would argue it's inherent with that language that they do. And so, I think that  because there must be a votes at that point, once it  doesn't pass on tally, that the  normal process involved including  amendments and would be appropriate. 
     

Fair enough. I read  it as deserving commissions prerogatives. And some other facts we had to  use in the meeting. I take your  point that it provides --,  but I don't see in this language  and anticipation that in previous offices, 
     --. 
     

Mr. Chairman,  I would add, it was not anticipated at the time of  directive 70. Directive 70 
     -- I have limited insight into what is anticipated. It's anticipated  in the ordinary course. 
     And, [  Indiscernible ] . 
     The directive provides the board come from the defendant.  It doesn't say that you must take  up the download.  It's not as detailed as would have  and and what the options are. It's basically [ Indiscernible - muffled ] .  >> I appreciate that, sir. [  Indiscernible - muffled ] . Further discussions or questions? Any motions? 
     

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would say,  and support of the motion , that during the audit, the editors  I believe discussed with  the committee,  more excesses than this. 200,000 was taken off the table but the decision. The bulk of these  successes do not affect did, never  affect that, cruise decision.  I don't think that the committee would be surprised to discover  that these excesses were out there. Their  response seems to have been  the treasurer was sloppy. That happens. But they are still looking  at over $700,000 in excessive contributions. It seems like the commission is prepared to ignore. I would  urge her not to do that. Having said that, I will now move  regarding the audit of Mike Braun  for Indiana. May 19-02.  I moved the commission  -- 
     as detailed by the audit division  and indigent document. That findings included in the  commission's final audit.  

Thank you,  Commissioner. Discussed the motion?  

Thank  you for the motion. I will be supporting  the motion I wanted to trial detergent  that he holds there is page , 26 of them, that [  Indiscernible - low volume ] . The  audit division should amend the  findings in light of the recent  decision that the federal court  regarding the constitutionality  validity of the provision of law which the  audit provision is relying on.  

This is essentially the committee  acknowledging -- [  Indiscernible - muffled ] .  

Thank you, Commissioner.  Further discussion and emotion? Mr. Traina?  

I will  be supporting the motion. The reason  why is I think that when the commission  decides to take the unique step, I think we have  to be particularly careful about  what level of due process we give individual spends in front  of the commission. Your code .  The audit division gave this to this particular case  on June the third. Here  we are, a few days later, voting  on it. We were told we did not get  any response for the committee. I did not know the committee  could give a response. They  received it, they don't have any  idea that they could response with.  But for now, for us to  rely upon comments made a previous  document with different numbers. And to squids  and glean important mission out  to say they've already responded,  let's move forward. It's  not the appropriate level of consideration  should give to respondents. Therefore,  I want to --  I won't be supporting the motion. 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . Do we have recently audits the that they told committee didn't  want to hear them anymore? 
     

 thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don't have  any such indication from the committee.  

Let me ask you forward. Was there any communication at  all? Aside from sending the cup  document.  Any communication? To excuse me, Mr. Chairman.  

I  don't believe we heard back from  the committee. But let  me confirm that.  

Mr. Chairman? No, we have  not. Each time we  communicated with the committee, or any other records that will  go on public record, we reach out and inform the  committee. We follow-up if we don't  hear back, as is happening in this  case. We  followed up to make sure they  did receive it. We do  have an open communication with  the committee. If you don't hear  anything, we follow-up with the  committee. There was  no further communication.  

Thank you very much. 
     Any further discussion? We have a general point. 
     I will not be supporting the motion,  or largely the procedural reasons  I've already given. Procedural errors or infirmities  have substantive results. One of the results here is the,  this argument was first presented  live at an open meeting where we  adopted the position we are  asked to unwind today. This document  has not gone. 
     I would say, honestly, we've been  asked to make a finding of excess  contributions dog  to a single dollar amount based  on sampling with a fairly large  range confidence interval  I have not had a chance to properly set. I am uncomfortable , partly because of the timing and  response points Commissioner China  has made. And partially because  I don't have visibility on how we  have decided to redo  the statistical sampling in the  matter. I'm therefore very uncomfortable in voting for a  gradually finding. Especially given the other  interpretation of the finding. For  those reasons, I think it's a lamentable  situation. If there had been  an earlier effort to engage with  this fact, we may be having  a different conversation. But we're  not. Commissioner?  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] 
     

I appreciate the invitation,  but I believe it should've been  done at the Iris stage. Any further  discussion? Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that in  the document that the audit provided and I made him Lou, there is the urgent $80,900 in excessive contributions that are not a margin of sampling.  The audit division  actually documented that amounts. They laid eyes on that amount of excessive contributions. I guess, my question is, if you're concern is with sampling , which the commissions have used in its other procedures for decades. If you are  now concerned about what the commission 
     for decades in the sampling arena, what about the bridge and $80,000 we absolutely  no it's not a  matter of sampling. 
     I'm going to ask for a vote on the  motion anyway. If it fails, is there  any interest on moving forward in  the $380,900? 
     

 That's certainly not a red herring,  but I appreciate the unusual kindness and  suggestion.  

No. The process should take in  account the finding of state over the District Court. It didn't. [  Indiscernible - muffled ] . I am bothered  by the way your approach.  The series problem. 
     Should be addressed seriously. This  is in the  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We were told that the previous  meeting  about this particular issue when  the discussion came up about the  state order that the impact of the  regulation was relevance to the outcome of this particular  audit. It seems that it's very relevant to this  audit, so much that we are backing  out the $250,000. Now we're trying to figure out  the right number associated with  it is. At the previous hearing,  discussed the state order,  it was an open patient to discuss  the right number and appropriate direction we should  go. I agree wholeheartedly the chairman that we can't do it here  and say, okay. You don't agree?  Let's come up with a different number. I don't think it's a perfect  process. I think it's unfortunate  that we are even having this discussion  he could've done a very detailed analysis prior to this.  >> Sorry. I'm doing this  on my phone, and it's not always  easy to find the meat button. Thank  you, Mr. Chairman.  This issue was generally raised  at the earlier discussion. By the  way, people keep calling them respondents.  They're not respondents. They are  a committee that's been audited. They are an audit. This  issue that there was included within the recommended excess contribution  amount, some of the amount was affected  by the potential he would be -- that issue was discussed at the  earlier juncture. My colleagues  were not interested in pressing  it out. The fact that there  was a lot of money left excessive . I do not have exact  numbers at the time. The audit division  had an estimate. I respect they  did not want to work off of an estimate.  To suggest this is never been raised before, and at  the last minute issue nobody had  a chance to think about, I don't  think that's accurate.  

Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor for the motion?  Aye.   Post?  

No.  

The motion  fails with three favor. Any additional  motions? Like 
     

Sorry Mr. Chairman.  I'm being -- doesn't go  difficulty here. Mr. Chairman 
     I would like the discussion that  we have just had to be reflected  in the additional issues section of the audit.  Is it just the this can  be accomplished by -- at the end of part five, additional issues. Issue one. We  could add an additional paragraph  that would read on 22. I would  like to make a motion to include  that under additional issues.  >> Any discussion of the motion? All  in favor?  

I.  Aye.  

 The motion fails  with three in favor. Three opposed.  Myself , Commissioner China, and Commissioner  Cooksey. Any other further motions?  

Mr.  Chairman?  

Commissioner trainer?  

I would  move to adopt the audit's recommendation.  To  commissioners, any discussions?  

All in favor?  

Aye   

The motion  is carried unanimously. Thank you  all very much. Mr. Steph Director, any --.  

 Mr. Chairman, there are no such  matters.  

Thank you so much, sir. This meeting is adjourned.  

Standby. [ Event concluded ] 
     >> 
     [ Event concluded ]