This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on June 23, 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. This is a meeting for the Federal election commission will come to order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The commission determined efficient to the one that the business requires. The further announcement was possible. We will submit the agenda document so that the commission can submit the late documents. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor, aye. The first item on the agenda this morning is the opinion advisory . We have had some discussion of this. We are joined by counsel. Mr. Morrison, welcome. Good morning, Commissioner. Good morning. Are there any general questions for the Council? I have one question, this is a request related to a particular election. The primary election. Has that election occurred? It has not. Thank you. Any discussion on this matter? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will walk through it. Ms. Lopez, at the last meeting, the question that was posed by several commissioners and myself was, how we calculate the value of this distribution . If this is a research book by fact, the information in it is already solid unlike a poll which is changed. It changes depending on the nature of what is happening in the political world. It is a document that has value that continues beyond just this individual election, it can be built upon. The possibility for it being provided to a sixth, seventh, eighth, whatever is involved. Had we get the candidates this information, if it is provided? Counsel, I am a little worried that you might have frozen. Are you still hearing us? My apologies, my Internet went out for just a moment there. I appreciate the question. I think I caught it all. Your question was, just to make sure that I answer exactly what you wanted, the value of the research but continues on, how do we figure out future recipients based on how it continues to have value. Thank you for confirming. I would say couple things, first, I think as a practitioner, I would disagree slightly with the premise. Pulling continues to have value. I've clients all the time who look past on June 25. It is not outdated. We do not build out past polling. I think that research can outdated itself as quickly as polling. It depends on the nature of the research. Research books can cover a variety of topics. I think it is likely that a research book is useless hundred 20 days later as is a poll. I do not think it is easy to draw a categorical line. I think that your premise is correct. As a practitioner, I see the flipside of that coin. The other thing I would say, is that 106.1 A is not about how we do a research book. It is on point. I hope that everyone would agree on that point. Instead, we look to the value that is reasonably erected to be derived. Here we are coming to the commission and sing your the fact that we have. We are going to buy the book and give it to two candidates. As draft B indicates, to divide by the number of recipients. In terms of down the line, I do not want to categorically impose a value that is the only reasonable way to do that. I do think of a research book, again, just like a poll, which is proprietary and sensitive, the whole point of a poll is not to send it with the world. If you give it two more recipients, that value will go down. I hope that helps a little bit. Does not answer my question. If this book is given to the fourth candidate, how would you advise them to record this? Is it zero? Because we already decided that the cost was 30,000. Is the value, even if it is diminishing based on the premise that you said, it does not have the same value, there is a diminishing return, how do you anticipate if you give this to the board, that you would advise them to record? My problem -- apologies for not answering directly. I do not think the value is zero. I think the regulations instruct me to look at the reasonable benefit. I would look at the polling regulations which are a pretty good guide. The total number of recipients who have gotten it, and consider the circumstances of that situation to come up with a reasonable value. Thank you. Colleagues? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lopez, I read your comments and I found them to be very helpful. I appreciate that. I do want to talk a little bit about what he referred to as the peripheral comment about the time and space method of evaluation and why you did not believe that it was a public role in this particular circumstance. Sure. We are very supportive of draft B. I offer this comment as a practitioner who is very excited to have such an engaged commission on these issues. It is a nice opportunity to discuss the general approach here. Again, I think that Eileen away from categorically saying that in this case, the commission is speaking to self research. We have to use the time and space method. Again, I think the regulation, 106.1 a does not talk about how to divide a research book. I think that what we look at is referring to the time or space method and categorically saying in South research, we look at that, they are prescribing a standard. It is not applicable. Again, in the context of polling, which we keep coming back to in part, draft B, I do agree with the analysis of polling. It can be permissible to divide by recipients or to divide by the number of questions. Depending on the circumstances, either can be reasonable. As a practitioner, I would err against a broad statement that applies to all self research. Great, thank you. Thank you. Colleagues? Further questions? I want to be crystal clear on something, counsel, my understanding of this request is that it goes to the three committees. Just to finish the point, I will ask you if we share the same understanding. There is been a lot of questions about , at the last committee meeting, that you share my understanding that this will be to precisely, three committees. Yes. Apologies for interrupting you. Yes, I share that understanding. I think that was addressed in my response to Commissioner Brewster. Those facts are not here. He would have to look at the time and the circumstances of those issues. We are just talking about three committees. I appreciate that. Further discussion? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on the chairman's point. If we were to take out the paragraph that talked about time and space, it would not be there. It is not applicable to this particular request. That does not mean that we would be rejecting that in the way of analyzing the situation more -- with the candidates is in the board. If we were to adopt that approach, I want you to be clear about what we are saying. Your comment raised some concerns with me because you are saying, other people are going to be confused in other circumstances. If other people in other circumstances, they have to file their own request and see what the commission says about those other circumstances. Yours only addresses the specific facts that are presented to us here. I think there is some sympathy on the commission for the notion of taking out something that does not really need to be in this opinion because it does not apply to this opinion. It does not mean that you are rejecting that way of analyzing a different request. It might be, though. I want you to be very clear about that and keep that in your head as you are advising other clients. They can rely on this, to the extent that they are on the boards with the facts here. If they are not, they need to ask another question. Alex, any further discussion, any further motions? >> Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise one other small point, I think there was one sentence that could have been written more artfully on page five , lines 13 and 14. Given the similarities between polling results, the commission has decided to use the polling results as the model here. This addresses draft B. I wish that we would advise that sentence to read, the polling location might serve as a model here. In the appropriate time, I would like that to be included in the motion. Thank you, Commissioner. I thought of one other point that I wanted to make. Again, in draft B, the point is made that, what we need is, for the reallocation to reflect the benefits. A three-way split may or may not reflect that, for example, you can clarify this, if they are withholding the copyright, and the other ones are not, then the BSC see should probably pay a portion of that, they have value. It is kind of a subtle point that is on page five of the draft. That if we were to adopt this, the commission concludes that the amount is allocated to each of the three committees of $10,000 if that allocation reasonably reflects the benefits . The fact that seems to be true is that BSCC is something of value because they have the copyright. I appreciate that point, Commissioner, it is very helpful. Alex? Are there any motions? I will give it a try, Mr. Chairman. As was discussed, the paragraph on page four, lines 8 through 13 . It appears to be not actually necessary to answer this question. As I said earlier, we can take that paragraph out. It does not mean in a subsequent case where that would be relevant, that the time space allocation would not come into play. However, my sense is that maybe, I'm not sure, it would garner more votes if I were to move the approval draft B with the edit that I had described earlier, and deleting that one paragraph on page four. Draft B being agenda document -- I think that is all of the edits that we had discussed. Thank you, Commissioner. That reflects the discussions. I appreciate the motion. Colleagues, any discussion of the motion? All in favor. Aye. Opposed, no. It passes with all in favor. Thank you very much, counsel. Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you. The next matter on the agenda is the draft opinion, the democracy engine, LLC. There is been one resides -- revised draft since the last discussion. I'm happy to welcome counsel. Thank you. Colleagues, any questions for counsel? Is there any discussion? Is there any motions? Commissioner cooks? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the draft advisory opinion, I move approval of agenda document 22 Dash 20 Dash B capital one . Thank you very much, Commissioner. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor, aye. Opposed? No. The motion fails with three in favor. And three opposed. Any further motions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In respect to the draft advisory opinion, -- rephrased draft A. Any discussion of the motion? All in favor. aye. no. Three opposed. I believe there is a need for further motion by if anyone would like to make one. Thank you very much to my colleagues, thank you very much to counsel. There seems to be some consensus as it relates to this draft. I might need someone to guide me in the right way. Is this the appropriate time to make a request to prepare a consensus draft for the issue, in which there are four in agreement. They were unable to agree by four votes for the remaining issues. Let me direct that question to counsel. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The deadline on this one is June 28th. We still have a little bit of time in order to do that. If the commissioners would like us to do that. Yes. Would you like to formalize that in a vote, Commissioner? I would like the Commissioner to provide a consensus draft on which there are four votes, stating that the commission is unable to get those votes on the remaining issues. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor. Aye. Nubian know. Thank you, counsel. You will be hearing more from us. Thank you, colleagues. They maxed -- the next matter on our agenda -- I apologize to all, I had an outdated agenda in front of me. The next matter is draft advisory, 2022 -8. We are joined by counsel. Welcome. Good morning. Colleagues , any questions for counsel on this matter? Any discussion? Just one comment, obviously. The draft is drafted to the requesters. It would apply to any other candidates that are participating in that election. I agree with that statement. Any further discussion? Any motions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Requested by the national department -- the national Republican Congressional committee, I approve the document . Thank you very much. Is there any discussion of the motion? None. All in favor. aye. The motion is carried unanimously. Congratulations, counsel. Thank you. >> I will feel badly that we did not take advantage of your presence here. All right, that exhausts the agenda for this morning. Mr. Chairman, there are no such matters. Standby. [ Event concluded ]