This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on July 14, 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. THE FERERAL ELECTION COMMISSION  FOR THE 14th  OF JULY, 2022 WILL COME TO ORDER.  WE HAVE  LATE SUBMITTED  DOCUMENTS.  

YES WE DO. I MOVE THE COMMISSION  CONSIDER DRAFT  ADVISORY OPINION 
     2022-14. EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD  AND THE IS CFR  SECTION 2.7. BUSINESS REQUIRES  AN NOTE GOVERNOR  -- GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT  WAS  OFFERED. ALSO FOR THE COMMISSION  TO ORDER THE LATE COMMISSION  OF  DOCUMENT 2022- DASH D.  

THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. ANY DISCUSSION?  

ALL IN  FAVOR?  

THE MOTION IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA A's THE  EXTENSION OF  COMMENT PERIOD AND THE  DRAFT  ADVISORY OPINION  2022-14 FOR LLC. THIS IS A MOTION  FROM MY OFFICE AS I THINK MY COLLEAGUES  ALL KNOW WOULD BE  COMMISSION INADVERTENTLY  NOTICE THE 11th OF JULY RATHER THAN  THE 16th OF JULY AS THE CONCLUSION  OF THE STATUTORILY MANDATED 10 DAY  PERIOD FOR THIS OMISSION OF COMMENTS.  THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION  AND POINTED OUT BY ONE OF THE COMMENTERS.  WHO ALREADY FILED.  I THOUGHT WE SHOULD EXERCISE OUR DISCRETION  UNDER THE ORGANIZATION  TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR THE COMMENTS.  WHICH IS THE FIFTH OF AUGUST BECAUSE  THAT IS THE FRIDAY BEFORE. WITH  THAT BACKGROUND THERE'S A MOTION  IN FRONT OF US.  ANY  COMMENTS?  

NO.  

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK  YOU FOR PRESENTING THE MOTION AND  HAPPY TO MOVE IT ON  YOUR BEHALF. I ALSO  THOUGHT THIS WAS APPROPRIATE TO  SEND A COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE REASONS  YOU STATED BUT ALSO  THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF INTEREST  IN THIS ONE AND WE DON'T WANT TO  CUT OUT THE COMMENT  PUBLIC FROM AIRING THEIR VIEWS TO US BEFORE  WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON  THE ADVISORY  COMMITTEE.  

COMMISSIONER JAMES TRAINOR?  

I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS  IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION  AND  FOR THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE I WAS  THE ONE WHO OBJECTED TO THIS EXTENSION  BECAUSE I WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY  TO  TALK ABOUT THE ADVISORY OPINION  PROCESS. I THINK THE ADVISORY OPINION  PROCESS IS ONE OF THE BEST ACTIONS  THE COMMISSION TAKES  AN ONE THAT WILL UTILIZE AND  I APPRECIATE THAT GOOGLE HAS BROUGHT  FORWARD THEIR REQUEST FOR US TO  CONSIDER BUT I ALSO HAVE SOME CONCERNS  ABOUT HOW  WE DEAL WITH THE ADVISORY OPINION  PROCESS. THESE DAYS CAMPAIGNS MOVE  AT A SPEED THAT IS 24 HOUR,  48 HOUR CYCLES.  WE HEAR AT THE  COMMISSION TEND TO MOVE IN 30 DAY  AND 60 DAY CYCLES. IT'S ONE WHERE  I  THINK WE DO A DISSERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND  A DISSERVICE TO THOSE WHO ARE REGULATED  BY CONGRESS UNDER THE STATUTE WE  OVERSEE BY MOVING IT AT A SLOW  PROCESS. HERE, WE ARE MOVING TO  EXTEND TIME FOR A COMMENT PERIOD  WHERE THE PUBLIC HAS NOTHING TO  COMMENT ON. WE DON'T HAVE A DOCUMENT FOR THEM  TO LOOK AT TO SAY WHAT OUR OPINION  IS OR IS NOT. THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED  UP TO THIS POINT ARE DOING DO THIS.  THAT MAY BE THE ANSWER THAT WE GIVE  TO GOOGLE. MAY BE THAT WE ALLOW  GOOGLE TO DO THAT. WE DON'T  HAVE EIGHT ACUMEN FOR THE PUBLIC  TO COMMENT ON. IT'S UNFORTUNATE  WE ARE EXTENDING A  COMMENT PERIOD AND NOT GIVING  THE FULL VIEW TO THE PUBLIC OF WHAT  IT IS THE COMMISSION IS CONSIDERING.  EVEN WHEN WE DO PUT OUT A DOCUMENT  FOR THE PUBLIC TO CONSIDER,  WE HAVE, SINCE MY TIME HERE WE HAVE  THIS  BAD HABIT OF PUTTING OUT A DOCUMENT,  RECEIVING COMMENTS ON IT AND WAITING  UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE INCLUDING  UP TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING  AND MY UNDERSTANDING IN THE PAST  WE'VE MADE DOCUMENTS PUBLIC DURING  A MEETING THAT ARE ALTERNATIVE DRAFTS.  I THINK THE SLOPE METICULOUS  PROCESS WE  GO THROUGH WHILE  IT MAY BE NECESSARY, I THINK IT'S  IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECOGNIZE THE  REGULATED COMMUNITY IS MOVING QUICKER  THAN WE ARE. WHILE WE HAVE TO GET  THE ANSWER RIGHT, WE ALSO NEED TO  BE MINDFUL OF HOW QUICKLY WE NEED  TO MOVE. AS YOU SAID, THERE WAS  AN ERROR IN OUR JULY 8th DIGEST  WITH REGARD  TO THIS SO I INTEND TO SUPPORT YOUR  MOTION  THIS MORNING. AGAIN, WE HAVE TO  GET IT RIGHT EVERY SINGLE TIME.  WE NEED TO CORRECT THAT. BUT, I  WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO BE  MINDFUL OF US MOVING MORE METHODICALLY  THROUGH THIS  BUT QUICKLY WHEN WE GO  THROUGH THIS ADVISORY OPINION PROCESS.  I THINK IT'S THE  MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS WE HAVE AVAILABLE  TO THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU.  

THANK YOU,  COMMISSIONER. ALL  IN FAVOR? 
     

THANK YOU. I HAVE TO MAKE THE  MOTION FIRST. I WILL NOTE BEFORE  I MAKE THE MOTION  OUR PROCEDURES IS  TO HAVE DOCUMENTS OUT A WEEK IN  ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. THAT WOULD  GIVE THE PUBLIC MORE TIME TO COMMENT  ON THE ACTUAL DRAFTS. RIGHT  NOW THEY ARE COMMENTING ON THE QUESTIONS.  WHICH IS PART OF THE STATUTE THAT  THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY  TO COMMENT . I THINK IT'S ALWAYS BETTER IF  WE CAN GET THE DOCUMENTS OUT EARLY  SO THE PUBLIC HAS A CHANCE TO COMMENT.  DEADLINES HAVE A WEIGHT OF FOCUSING  THE MIND AND IF AT THE LAST MINUTE  WE ARE ABLE TO GET TOGETHER IN AGREEMENT  TO GET VOTES  WITH HER WASN'T ONE IN A WEEK IN  ADVANCE THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT AND  WE CAN GIVE IT AN ANSWER EVEN IF  IT ISN'T OUT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.  I THINK WE ALL  WOULD PREFER IT.  I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH MY COLLEAGUES  TO TRY AND GET THOSE DOCUMENTS  OUT EARLIER. HAVING SAID THAT,  PURSUANT TO 11 CFR SECTION 1.3 B  WITH THE COMMISSION EXTEND THE COMMENT.  MAC FOR  ADVISORY OPINION 2022-14TH UNTIL  FRIDAY, AUGUST 5th,  BLAH 2022.  

DISCUSSION? ALL IN  FAVOR?  

"AYE".  

MOTION IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  THANK YOU.  NEXT MATTER ON OUR  AGENDA IS DRAFT ADVISORY  OPINION 2022-06.  MR. WANG? 
     

GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.  AGENDA  DOCUMENT 2022-28-A  IS FOR HISPANIC  LEISURE TRUST. HLT IS A NON-[INDISCERNIBLE]  COMMITTEE WITH  PICKING  HISPANIC  REPUBLICAN -- HLT PROPOSES TO NAME TWO OF THOSE  MEMBERS AS ITS CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.  HLT PRESENTED ITS PROPOSED BYLAWS  INCLUDING  THREE FUNDRAISING PACIFIC ALTERNATIVES  AND ASK WHETHER IT WOULD BE A LEADERSHIP  PACK OR AFFILIATED WITH THE CHAIR  OR VICE CHAIR'S EXISTING OWNERSHIP  PACKS.  THE DRAFT CONCLUDES THAT UNDER THE BYLAWS  WITH PROPOSED FUNDRAISING ALTERNATIVE  C. HLT WOULD NOT BE A LEADERSHIP  PACK OF EITHER THE CHAIR OR VICE  CHAIR OR AFFILIATED WITH THOSE  REPRESENTATIVES EXISTING OWNERSHIP  PACKS. THE COMMISSION RECEIVED ONE  COMMENT ON THE DRAFT FROM THE REQUESTER  AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS  YOU HAVE. THANK YOU.  

MQ, COUNSELOR. MR. WANG, I WOULD  LIKE TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS.  PART OF THAT,  LET ME EXPRESS SOME SYMPATHY FOR  THE POSITION YOU FIND YOURSELF IN.  THIS IS A DEEP DIVE BY MY OFFICE  AND I SUSPECT BY MY COLLEAGUES  ON THE HISTORY IN ALL THIS. I'VE  BEEN STRUCK AGAIN IN  THAT EFFORT BY THE  STATUTE WHICH  I'VE HAD A FAIR NUMBER OF STATUTES  IN MY TIME. I HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT  WHERE A LIST IS NOT SET OFF WITH  COMMAS BUT  STATUES. WE TALK ABOUT POLITICAL  COMMITTEES QUOTE  ESTABLISHED OR FINANCED OR MAINTAINED  OR CONTROLLED BY ANY CORPORATION  AND THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION  HAS  COMPLETED THIS WORK AND  BALANCING TEST. THERE'S PROBABLY  SOME ECHOES  OF THAT. THAT  BEING SAID, I DID HAVE A COUPLE  OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU AS I WRESTLED  WITH THIS. IN PARTICULAR WITH THE  QUESTION  OF AFFILIATION AND THE  REGULATIONS TALK ABOUT GROUPS THAT  ESTABLISHED  AND CONTROLLED. EF Mc GROUPS ARE  GROUPS OF -- IT'S IN THE STATUTE  AND REGULATION. MY QUESTION TO YOU  IS, GIVEN THE FACTS OF THE  BOARD CONTROL OF YOUR CLIENT, HOW  DO WE GIVE EFFECT  TO  THAT  LANGUAGE?  

I'M NOT SURE I HAVE A GOOD ANSWER  TO THAT QUESTION. IT'S THE  FACT THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, I  DON'T KNOW. DRAFT A DOES A GOOD  JOB  COMING TO -- ARRIVING AT  A  PRO-CHOICE THAT OUR CLIENT CAN LIVE  WITH AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE  PRACTICE OF SOME OF THE OTHER PAX  OUT THERE THAT WE IDENTIFIED IN  OUR REQUEST. DRAFT A PROVIDE SUFFICIENT  GUIDANCE FOR US TO ALLOW MEMBERS  OF CONGRESS TO BE INVOLVED IN OUR  CLIENT'S ACTIVITIES, IN  OUR CLIENTS GOVERNANCE. WE DID HAVE  SOME CONCERNS WITH HOW DRAFT A  TREATS THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WERE  MADE BY THE LEADERSHIP PACS OF THE  CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF  THIS COMMITTEE. WE DON'T THINK THAT  DRAFT A ANALYSIS ON THAT POINT MAKES  A LOT OF SENSE.  IN TERMS OF  YOUR QUESTION ABOUT EF MC, THE  COMMISSION HAS TAKEN A KNOW IT WHEN  I SEE IT APPROACH ON THIS  ISSUE AND IT MAKES IT UP AS IT GOES  ALONG IN THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS  AND IN THE AL PROCESS.  IT PICKS AT RANDOM CERTAIN  THRESHOLDS WHERE INVOLVEMENT BY  MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. CERTAIN THRESHOLDS  OF FINANCING BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS  AND  TEAMS INSTANCES OF  THOSE ACTIVITIES TO TRIGGER  EF Mc AND AFFILIATION FINDINGS IN  CERTAIN INSTANCES WHEN IT DOESN'T.  THERE IS  NO RULES UNDER EITHER THE  COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS  OR  PROCESS. THAT'S WHY I DON'T HAVE  A GOOD ANSWER FOR YOUR GENERAL QUESTION.  

THAT IS FAIR. I WILL MOVE ON  TO THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE EF  Mc TESTS. THE QUESTION  I THINK IS MILL CHALLENGING IS EF  Mc  BY WHOM AND THAT STRIKES ME GOING  TO THE HEART OF  THE  STATUTORY QUESTION. DOES A GROUP  OF PERSON CONTROLLING THE PACK HAVE  TO BE THE  SAME PERSON? I'M NOT CONVINCED EITHER  THE STATUTE  AND REGULATIONS HAS GOOD GUIDANCE  ON THAT POINT. I WANTED TO FLAG  IT IN CASE YOU HAD A GOOD ANSWER.  WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE REST OF IT.  I TEND TO AGREE WITH  YOU FOR  WHAT THAT'S WORTH ON THE FINANCING  ISSUE AND APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS  POINTED OUT THE  STRANGE WEIGHT IN WAY WE  TREAT FINANCING AS PART OF THE ESTABLISHMENT  TEST INSTEAD OF THE FINANCING TEST.  IN SOME CASES PART OF THE FINANCING  TEST -- I THINK THAT POINT IS WELL  MADE AND FRANKLY IS AN ARGUMENT  MUCH BETTER SITUATED IN THE STATUTE  GIVEN THESE THINGS ARE  SET OF. MY QUESTION IS, WHO  ULTIMATELY  CONTROLS HLT?  

UNDER THE PROPOSED BYLAW PROVISIONS  UNDER ONE OF  OUR OUR ALTERNATIVES IT WOULD BE  THE ENTIRE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF  HLT. UNDER THE  CURRENT MEMBERSHIP OF THE HISPANIC  CONGRESSIONAL CONFERENCE THAT WOULD  BE A PORT  OF EIGHT MEMBERS.  

THAT'S MY QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND  THE BOARD CONTROLS THE ORGANIZATION.  THE ENTIRE BOARD CONTROL THE ORGANIZATION  OR A PART OF THE BOARD AND DOES  IT MATTER ON  THESE DOCS?  

YOU ARE RIGHT TECHNICALLY A MAJORITY  VOTE UNDER THE PROPOSED  BYLAW PROVISIONS. A MAJORITY OF  THE BOARD CONTROLS  THE COMMITTEE.  

RIGHT.  I GUESS --  THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION ON THOSE  LINES. THERE'S BEEN BACK AND FORTH  WITH THE PROPOSED  BYLAWS ARE AND WHAT ITS  COMPOSITION  WOULD BE. I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE IN  THE POSITION OF ASKING GUIDANCE  ON THAT MATTER WHILE WE ASK YOU  QUESTION HOW YOU DO IT AND YOU  CAN PROBABLY TELL A GOOD SIDE CITY  ON THAT ARGUMENT. MY  QUESTION IS, DOES YOUR REQUEST CONTEMPLATE  A BOARD, A MAJORITY OF WHICH DOES  NOT CONTROL  IT. ESSENTIALLY A POURED  CONTROLLED BY  INDEPENDENT RECORDS. 
     

I THINK YOUR QUESTION WITH THE  MAJORITY OF THE BOARD ALSO CONTROL  THEIR  OWN LEADERSHIP PACS, DID I HEAR  YOU CORRECTLY ON THAT?  

THE FIRST QUESTION I ASKED YOU  IS CONTROLLED BY WHOM AND THAT QUESTION  DOES NOT BECOME  RELEVANT IF NO ONE INVOLVED IN ANY  OF THIS CONTROLS THE ULTIMATE ORGANIZATION.  WE'VE GOT VARIOUS APPROACHES TO  THE BOARD AND AT LEAST THREE EXAMPLES  THAT ARE LARGELY KEY  TO THE FINANCE ASPECT OF THIS WHICH  I UNDERSTAND. WHAT  I DON'T  KNOW IS WHETHER YOUR REQUEST ANTICIPATES  A BOARD WHICH WOULD BE CONTROLLED  IN THE SENSE A MAJORITY OF THE DIRECTORS  WOULD NOT BE PEOPLE ARE  EF Mc. ANOTHER  PACKED.  >> THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD IS NOT  CAUGHT UP IN ANY OF THIS.  

IN  PRACTICE EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF  THE BOARD IS LIKELY TO HAVE THEIR  OWN LEADERSHIP PACS. TYPICALLY THE  LEADERSHIP  PACKED IS CONSIDERED TO BE CONTROLLED  EXCLUSIVELY BY ONE CONGRESSIONAL  SPONSOR. MEMBER OF CONGRESS. HERE,  THIS IS A PACKED  THAT IS NOT CONTROLLED EXCLUSIVELY  BY ANY ONE NUMBER OF  CONGRESS. UNDER THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING  OF THE LEADERSHIP PACK I THINK  DRAFT A SAYS THIS HISPANIC  LEADERSHIP TRUST IS NOT  A  LEADERSHIP PACT BECAUSE IT'S NOT  CONTROLLED BY ANY SINGLE MEMBER  OF CONGRESS.  IT'S A BOARD OF  MEMBERS AND,  YES, INDIVIDUALLY  EACH ONE WILL HAVE THEIR OWN LEADERSHIP  PACT.  THOSE LEADERSHIP PACT'S  SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED  AFFILIATED  WITH  HLT. IT TAKES MORE THAN ONE MEMBER  OF CONGRESS TO  CONTROL HLT.  

I UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT. I'M  ASKING ABOUT THE SCOPE OF  YOUR REQUEST. IS HLT ONLY INTERESTED  IN  THE BOARD 
     CONTROLLED BY THE  CAUCUS?  

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO  BE THAT WAY. WE WERE INTERESTED  IN THAT POTENTIAL OPTION  BUT IF THE FEC WERE  TO ISSUE AN  OPINION SAYING THAT MAJORITY OF  THE BOARD CANNOT HAVE MEMBERS OF  CONGRESS ON ITS BOARD,  I THINK -- IF THAT WITH  THE COMMISSION ARRIVED AT THAT'S  SOMETHING WE COULD LIVE  WITH.  

THAT  IS HELPFUL. I READ YOUR REQUEST  AS BEING DIRECTED TO  ANY MEMBER OF  THE CAUCUS, ANY POTENTIAL MEMBER  OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOT SOLELY  THE PROPOSED CHAIR AND  VICE CHAIR. FOR  SUFFICIENT REASONS THE PUBLIC  DRAFT IS KEY TOWARDS THE  ROLE OF THE CHAIR AND VICE  CHAIR. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE  BIT ABOUT THE SPECIFIC VISION OF  THE OFFICERS AND  WHY THEY WOULD NOT CONTROLLED THE  ENTITY EVEN THOSE  DELEGATIONS ARE THERE.  

I ALSO PICKED UP ON THAT NUANCE  OR QUARK IN  THE DRAFT. THE DRAFT AS  FOCUS MORE ON THE CHAIR AND VICE  CHAIR. YOU ARE CORRECT IN OUR  REQUEST ALSO ASKS  MORE BROADLY ABOUT THE OTHER MEMBERS  OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND WE  DID WANT TO CONFIRM HLT WOULD NOT  BE CONSIDERED TO BE EFMC  OR AFFILIATED OR THOSE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD  AND NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE LEADERSHIP  PACT'S  ON THE MEMBERS OF THOSE  BOARDS. IN TERMS OF WHAT LEVEL OF  CONTROL WE ENVISIONED BY THE CHAIR  AND  VICE CHAIR, I THINK THE LEVEL  OF CONTROL WOULD BE TYPICAL  OF ANY CONTROL EXERCISE  BY INDIVIDUALS TYPICALLY HOLDING  THOSE TITLES. UNDER  DRAFT A,  IT CONCLUDES THAT IF THOSE  TWO  INDIVIDUALS HAD ACT IN CONJUNCTION  WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD  AND ALL MAJOR DECISIONS HAVE TO  BE MADE BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE  BOARD OF  DIRECTORS THEN UNDER DRAFT  A THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHAIR AND  VICE CHAIR WOULD BE QUOTE  UNQUOTE DILUTED BY THE VOTES OF  THOSE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD  OF DIRECTORS. IN THAT  SENSE, THAT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR  WOULD NOT BE CONTROLLING BETWEEN  THE TWO OF THEM HLT. THAT'S  SOMETHING WE UNDERSTAND  WHERE DRAFT A IS  COMING FROM. 
     >> SOMETIMES YOU HAVE  A  SITUATION -- IF THE CONTROL GROUP  OF THE ORGANIZATION IS  SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT  TO PROVIDE A BODY WITH THE POSSIBILITY  OF DEADLOCK AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES  IT MAY BE A PERSON  IS SUCH ALLOCATING AUTHORITY ESSENTIALLY  IS A LEVEL OF AUTONOMY THAT IS  NOT NECESSARILY ANTICIPATED BY  THE BYLAWS. THAT WOULD BE MY  FIRST QUESTION. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE  TO THAT? IN  THE CONTEXT -- I SUSPECT  THE POWERS THAT ARE GRANTED BY THE  BOARD TO THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR  ARE GOING  TO BE RELEVANT. I NOTICED ONE OF  YOUR DRAFTS SPECIFICALLY  LEFT QUESTIONS HOW THE FUNDS WOULD  BE DISTRIBUTED. THAT'S A PRETTY STRONG FACTOR AGAINST  CONTROL. THERE'S ALSO A LINE IN  ONE OF YOUR RESPONSES HOW  THE EXPECTATION  WOULD BE HANDLED BY CONTRACTORS  AND SEEM TO ME IT WAS NOT CLEAR  THE GOOD READING OF  YOUR REQUEST THE INTENTION WAS TO  HAVE THOSE CONTRACTORS BE  SELECTED. COULD YOU  SPELL OUT -- I DON'T  SEE THIS AS A.  CEO DELEGATION. WHICH POWER DO YOU  INTEND  OR EXPECT WOULD  BE FOR THE VOTE AND WHICH WOULD  BE DELEGATED?  

TO ADDRESS YOUR FIRST QUESTION  ABOUT DEADLOCKS AND THE ANALOGY  TO THE  COMMISSION --  

I THOUGHT I WAS BEING SUBTLE.  

I'M SORRY.  

I THOUGHT I WAS BEING SUBTLE.  

THE  PROPOSED BYLAW COMMISSIONS WOULD  SORT OF  BE PARALLEL TO HOW THE  COMMISSION OPERATES WITH THE EIGHT  MEMBER BOARD INITIALLY  BEING CONTEMPLATED. IT IS  AN EVEN NUMBER SO IT'S POSSIBLE  THERE COULD BE DEADLOCKS. UNDER  THE BYLAW  REVISIONS ANY DECISION OF THE BOARD  REQUIRES A MAJORITY VOTE. IF IT'S  A DEADLOCK THAT'S NOT MAJORITY.  THE MOTION  WOULD NOT CARRY AND THE BOARD WOULD  NOT BE ABLE TO ACT. THE CHAIR AND  VICE CHAIR WOULD NOT OVERWRITE  THE VOTE UNDER DRAFT A.  

CAN I JUMP IN? I'M SPECIFICALLY  JUMPING EIGHT TWO MEMBER BOARD WHICH  IS SOMETHING THAT IS  ANTICIPATED. THE ANALOGY WOULD  BE ORGANIZATIONAL OFFICER DECISION  TO THE BOARD AND THE BOARD DEADLOCKS.  IT WOULD BE THE OFFICER CONTROLS  HALF THE BOARD THEREFORE CAN FORCE  A DEADLOCK. DOES THAT MEAN THAT  OFFICER ESSENTIALLY CONTROLS THE  ORGANIZATION?  

THAT'S A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION.  

DSTU EXPECT AN  OFFICER TO VOTE  AGAINST THEIR DECISION IN A BOARD  MEETING? IT SEEMS SURPRISING TO  ME.  

I EXPECT AN OFFICER TO VOTE --  

THE CHAIR TAKES A DECISION  AND THE VICE CHAIR DOESN'T  LIKE IT. THE CHAIR VOTES IN FAVOR  OF THE DECISION AND THE VICE CHAIR  VOTES AGAINST. THE CHAIR IS IN THE  POSITION TO PREVENT  ANY  OVERSIGHT OF THE DECISION. IS THAT  CONTROL?  

I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW YOUR SCENARIO.  

ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SUGGESTED  IS WE ARE AND  HAVE TWO BOARD MEMBERS. A CHAIRMAN  AND VICE CHAIRMAN. IN MY RIGHT?  

I'M NOT SURE THAT, THAT IS  ACTUALLY WE SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED  IN  OUR PROPOSAL. A BOARD OF ONLY TWO  MEMBERS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT  WE WERE  PROPOSING.  

THEN I MISUNDERSTOOD  YOUR REQUEST. 
     

WE WORK PROPOSING THE  BOARD OF THE ENTIRE  HISPANIC CONFERENCE WHICH IS MORE  THAN TWO MEMBERS. IT'S THEORETICALLY  POSSIBLE THAT  AT SOME POINT  THE CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CONFERENCE  COULD CONSIST OF ONLY TWO MEMBERS  BUT WE DON'T THINK THAT'S LIKELY  AND THAT'S NOT WHAT IS A  MERELY,  -- IMMEDIATELY BEING COMPLICATED.  

THAT LEAVES THE  SECOND QUESTION. WHAT POWER TO BE  DELEGATED?  

JUST  THAT THEY TODAY ACTIVITIES THE ADMINISTRATIVE  FUNCTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE  CARRIED ON  BY CONTRACTORS. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS  ARE VERY BUSY  WITH  OTHER ACTIVITIES SO THEY CAN'T BE  INVOLVED IN MICROMANAGING  DAY-TO-DAY ACTIVITIES OF  THE COMMITTEE. THEY MAKE  MORE MAJOR DECISIONS INCLUDING THE  HIRING OF THE VENDORS THEMSELVES  AND CONSULTANTS. THAT IS A FUNCTION  WE WOULD CONTEMPLATE BEING SEEN  BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS  AND OFFICERS AND  MAJOR DECISIONS LIKE  WHICH CANDIDATES THAT THE COMMITTEE  CONTRIBUTES TO WHICH IS A  MAJOR FUNCTION OF THE PACT. THOSE  WOULD BE MADE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS  AS WELL.  

THAT IS VERY HELPFUL. THAT'S  ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. I APPRECIATE  YOUR TIME. ANY  DISCUSSION?  

MR. WAYNE, IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE  TO SEE YOU.  

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.  

I WANTED TO STATE FOR THE RECORD  THAT THIS WAS NOT  A DRAFT I WOULD LIKELY TO SUPPORT.  THERE'S BEEN WORK IN  THE BACKGROUND. THERE'S  ANOTHER DRAFT IN THE BACKGROUND  I HELD OFF ON MAKING  PUBLIC BECAUSE IT WASN'T CLEAR THAT  WOULD GET SUPPORT. WE DID  NOT WANT TO CONFUSE THE  REQUESTER OR PUBLIC WITH HAVING  MULTIPLE DRAFTS OUT THERE AND TRYING  TO FIGURE OUT WITH THE OPERATIVE  DRAFT AND WHERE ARE THEY GOING WITH  THIS. THERE HAVE BEEN -- I  WANT TO ASSURE YOU. THERE HAVE BEEN  DISCUSSIONS AND I EXPECT THERE WILL  BE ONE MORE DRAFT COMING  AND PERHAPS WE WILL BE ABLE  TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.  I APPRECIATE YOU ARE GIVING  US MORE TIME TO WORK THAT OUT AND  MINDFUL OF THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.  I HOPE WE CAN GET A DRAFT TO THE  PUBLIC NOT AT THE LAST MINUTE BEFORE  THE NEXT MEETING.  

THANK YOU.  ALWAYS BEST TO BE CLEAR IN  SUCH MATTERS. ANY  FURTHER  QUESTIONS? MR. WANG, THANK YOU FOR  YOUR ATTENDANCE AND ANSWERING ALL  OF MY QUESTIONS ABOUT  YOUR REQUEST. MOST OF OUR  APPRECIATION PERHAPS ALL OF OUR  APPRECIATION FOR YOUR  EXTENSION. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING  YOU AND TWO WEEKS.  

 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.  

NEXT MATTER IS DRAFT ADVISORY  OPINION 2022-09.  

GOOD  MORNING.  

GO AHEAD COUNSELOR.  

GOOD MORNING,  COMMISSIONERS. A  DRAFT ADVISORY OPINION RESPOND TO REQUESTS FROM  THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WISCONSIN  FEDERAL. THE REQUESTER ASKS WHETHER  IT MAY FORM A JOINT FUNDRAISER COMMITTEE  WITH A NOMINEE FUND THAT HAS BEEN  ESTABLISHED FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY  NOMINEE FOR U.S. SENATE IN WISCONSIN.  THE DRAFT CONCLUDES  THE PROPOSALS PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE  IT IS CONSISTENT BOTH WITH THE COMMISSION'S  REGULATIONS GOVERNING JOINT FUNDRAISING  ACTIVITIES AND WITH PRIOR COMMISSION  ADVISORY OPINIONS CONCERNING THE  CURRENT SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS  ON BEHALF OF I GET DETERMINED RECIPIENT.  WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS  ON THE REQUEST OR DRAFT. THANK YOU  AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY  QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.  

THANK YOU, COUNSELOR. ANY QUESTIONS  FOR COUNSEL?  

THANK YOU. GOOD TO  SEE YOU. YOU DID NOT SUBMIT  ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS FOR OTHER ADVISORY  REQUEST BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED  IN ANYTHING YOU WANT  TO MAKE KNOWN OR ANY VIEWS YOU WANT  TO EXPRESS ABOUT THE ONE DRAFT YOU  HAVE MADE PUBLIC IN RESPONSE TO  YOUR  REQUEST  

IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU AND ALL  THE COMMISSIONERS  AS WELL. THE FIRST THING I WOULD  SAY IS THANK THE STAFF HERE.  THIS OPINION IS A COMPLEX OF FACTS  AND I APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION TO  DETAIL THEY DEMONSTRATED  TO ENSURING THIS MOVES QUICKLY.  WE ASKED FOR AN EXPEDITED TURN AROUND  DUE TO THE PRIMARY BEING VERY SOON.  I THINK THAT COMMISSION STAFF WAS  EXCELLENT IN ENSURING THE COMMISSION  HAD EVERYTHING IT NEEDED.  FACTS WINDS. I WANT TO  HIGHLIGHT THAT. OTHERWISE, I  DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS. A FULLY  SUPPORTED OF THE DRAFT. I THINK  IT IS RIGHT ON THE LAW. THE COMMISSION  IT SETS OUT ARE CLEAR, PROVIDE GOOD  GUIDANCE TO THE REGULATED COMMUNITY  SO I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF IT AND  GRATEFUL TO THE COMMISSION BOARD'S  CONSIDERATION.  

THANK YOU,  COUNSELOR AND THE KIND WORDS FOR  OUR STAFF. ANY DISCUSSION?  ANY  MOTIONS?  

THANK YOU.  WITH RESPECT TO DRAFT  ADVISORY 2022-09 DEMOCRATIC PARTY  OF WISCONSIN FEDERAL, I MOVE APPROVAL  OF AGENDA  DOCUMENT 22-26-A WHICH IS  DRAFT A.  

ANY DISCUSSION ON  THE MOTION? ALL IN  FAVOR?  

"AYE".  

MOTION IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  THANK YOU, COUNSEL. CONGRATULATIONS.  NEXT ITEM IS DRAFT  ADVISORY  OPINION 2022-07. GO AHEAD COUNSEL.  

THANK YOU,  MR. CHAIRMAN GOOD MORNING. AGENDA  DOCUMENT 2022-27  A  AND 2022-20 7B CONTAINED DRAFT RESPONSES  TO A REQUEST FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC  SWALWELL AND HIS  PRINCIPAL  SWALWELL.   THE REQUEST ASKED IF HE COULD USE  CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR OVERNIGHT CHILDCARE  WAS TRAVELING FOR HIS  OWN  CAMPAIGN OR OTHER CAMPAIGNS. THE  REQUEST ALSO ASKED WHETHER CAMPAIGN  FUNDS MAY BE USED TO PAY FOR CHILD  CARE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CONGRESSMAN  WHEN HE AND HIS SPOUSE TRAVEL TO  INVITATIONS RECEIVED BECAUSE OF  HIS OFFICIAL STATUS OR DUTIES. BOTH  DRAFTS A AND B CONCLUDE  THAT CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL CAN  USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO PAY FOR  CHILD  CARE FUNDS.  A DRAFT DIFFER WHETHER CAMPAIGN  FUNDS MAY BE USED TO CHILD CARE  AND THE CONGRESSMAN TRAVELS FOR  OTHER CAMPAIGNS  OR IN RESPONSE TO INVITATIONS RECEIVED  BECAUSE OF HIS OFFICIAL STATUS OR  DUTIES. DRAFT A CONCLUDES THAT CAMPAIGN  FUNDS MAY NOT BE USED TO PAY FOR  CHILD CARE IN THE SITUATIONS BECAUSE  IT WOULD CONVERT CAMPAIGN FINDS  TWO PERSONAL USE. DRAFT BE CONCLUDES  THAT CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL CAN USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS  TO PAY FOR CHILD CARE EXPENSES FOR  THE SITUATIONS BECAUSE IT WOULD  NOT CONVERT CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO PERSONAL  USE. WE  RECEIVED NO COMMENTS ON  THE REQUEST AND ONE COMMENT THIS  MORNING ON THE DRAFT. THANK YOU  AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY  QUESTIONS.  

THANK YOU.  LET ME THAT REBECCA  OLSON IS ON BEHALF OF THE REPRESENTATIVE.  ANY QUESTIONS?  

THANK YOU.  THANKS TO OGC FOR  THE PRESENTATION. I HAVE SOME  QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION  OF OUR PERSONAL USE STATUTE AND  REGULATIONS TO  THIS REQUEST. FIRST, FOR THE BENEFIT  OF EVERYONE, YOU AGREE THAT TEST  THE COMMISSION APPLIES THAT COMES  FROM THE STATUTE WHICH IS THE PERSPECTIVE  TESTS WHICH ASK WHETHER THE EXPENSE  THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BE PAID  WITH CAMPAIGN FUNDS WOULD EXIST  IRRESPECTIVE OF  THE CANDIDATES 
     CAMPAIGN FOR OFFICIAL DUTIES. IT'S  AN EXPENSE THAT WOULD EXIST OUTSIDE  THE CAMPAIGN OR OFFICIAL DUTIES  USING CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR THAT EXPENSE  AS PERSONAL USE. IF IT'S SOMETHING  THAT ARISES FROM THE CAMPAIGN OR  OFFICIAL  DUTIES THAN IT'S GENERALLY PERMISSIBLE. DO  YOU AGREE TO THAT STANDARD WE APPLY?  

DEFINITELY.  

CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THE REASONING  FOR HOW AT HOME  CHILDCARE SERVICES, IN THIS CASE  IT'S  NANNY SERVICES, WOULD NOT  EXIST IRRESPECTIVE OF SWALWELL'S OFFICIAL DUTIES.  EXPLAINED TO ME WHY   OR HOW THIS EXPENSE ARISES FROM  A  WOULD NOT  BE IN HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES?  

THERE ARE A FEW WAYS IN WHICH  THAT HAPPENS. AS THE DRAFT SAYS  THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS WE  ARE ASKING SPECIFICALLY FOR  GUIDANCE  ON THIS. THE REASON WE ARE ASKING  FOR ADVICE IS BECAUSE IT DID SEEM  STRANGE TO US AS WE WERE  GOING THROUGH. AS  BOTH DRAFTS SAY THERE'S NO QUESTION  WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC  CAMPAIGN EVENTS  OR TRAVEL THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THE  CONGRESSMAN'S CAMPAIGN THAT IT IS  PERMISSIBLE AND OBVIOUSLY -- IT'S  CLEAR IN THE  RESPECTIVE TEST THAT FUNDS CAN BE  USED  FOR THAT. WE COME ACROSS A  LOT OF QUESTIONS IN THE CAMPAIGN  BECAUSE CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL   GETS A LOT OF REQUEST TO APPEAR  TO TRAVEL. AS  WELL AS TRAVELING FOR OFFICIAL DUTIES  AND THINGS LIKE THAT.  THE FEC HAS GIVEN CLEAR ADVICE IF  THAT WAS OKAY FOR  CHILD CARE. WHERE I THINK OUR QUESTIONS  CAME UP AND I THINK THE DIFFERENCE  THERE BETWEEN DRAFT A AND DRAFT  THE  WAS THAT  THERE IS NO QUESTION THESE REQUEST  WOULD NOT COME TO SOMEONE WHO WAS  NOT ERIC  SWALWELL . THAT'S WHERE WE  ARE TRYING TO  DETERMINE WHERE SOME CHILDCARE REQUEST  IN THE PRIOR ADVICE  LETTERS SAY, IT'S  CLEAR THAT DOING FOR YOUR  OWN CAMPAIGN IS A  PERMISSIBLE USE. THERE COMES TO  BE THESE  WITH SHEAR -- SQUISH YOUR LINES  WHERE YOU ARE CAMPAIGNING FOR SOMEONE  ELSE. DOES  THAT INVOLVE  -- DOES THAT THEN COME BACK TO THE  RESPECTIVE TEST. IRRESPECTIVE IN  HIS POSITION IN-HOUSE LEADERSHIP,  WOULD HE GET  THESE REQUESTS. I THINK WE ARE LOOKING SPECIFICALLY  FROM THE COMMISSION AS TO THE GUIDANCE  ON  THAT.  

DO YOU AGREE  THAT STATUTE DOESN'T SPEAK TO EXPENSES  THAT ARISE FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S CAMPAIGN.  PORTING FROM THE STATUE  IT SAYS USES TO FULFILL ANY COMMITMENT,  OBLIGATION OR EXPENSE OF A PERSON  THAT WOULD EXIST IRRESPECTIVE OF  THE CANDIDATES ELECTION CAMPAIGN  OR INDIVIDUAL?  

I WOULD AGREE.  

YOU AGREE THE STATUTE  WOULDN'T COVER EXPENSES THAT ARISE  FROM OTHER CANDIDATES  CAMPAIGNS.  

I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE  INTERPRETATION OF IT. WHEN  I  WAS WORKING WITH STAFF ON THIS THE  QUESTION WAS WHETHER HIS POSITION  AS  IN-HOUSE LEADERSHIP AND CHARGE TO  GET ADDITIONAL DEMOCRATS ELECTED  TO CONGRESS WHETHER THAT WAS THE  DIFFERENCE. THERE'S  NO QUESTION YOU ARE RAISING CAMPAIGN  FUNDS AND USING IT TO SUPPORT YOUR  OWN CAMPAIGN  AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE  LINE IS COULD BE PERSONAL  USE THERE. IN TERMS OF THE  RESPECTIVE TESTS, THERE IS MORE  GRAY AREA  THERE.  

LET ME ASK MORE SPECIFICALLY  ABOUT HOW YOU APPLY THE RESPECTIVE  TEST. IS IT THAT HE HAS  CHILDREN FOR WHICH HE AND HIS WIFE  NORMALLY PROVIDE THEIR OWN CHILDCARE  DURING CERTAIN PERIODS BUT AS A  RESULT OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL,  LET'S SAY, HE IS THEN NO LONGER  ABLE TO PROVIDE HIS OWN CHILDCARE  AND THAT NECESSITATES THE EXPENSE  OF HAVING TO PROVIDE  ALTERNATIVE CHILDCARE. IS THAT YOUR  THEORY OF THE IRRESPECTIVE TEST  AND HOW  IT WOULD APPLY HERE AND WHAT IT  WOULD BE AUTHORIZED OR AM I  MISUNDERSTANDING IT?  

WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY IN  THE SENSE IS THAT THERE ARE MANY  TIMES  IN WHICH CHILDCARE IS NEEDED FOR  THEM. THEY BOTH WORK FULL-TIME.  WHAT WE ARE TRYING  TO DETERMINE, THERE ARE PLENTY OF  TIMES THE REASON THEY ARE NEEDING  THE  CHILDCARE IS A REASON UNRELATED  TO  ERIC'S CAMPAIGN OR OFFICIAL DUTIES  AND THOSE ARE PAID FOR BY  PERSONAL FINDS. THE  QUESTION BECAME IF THE REASON WE  ARE NEEDING THIS SERVICE IS BECAUSE  OF TRAVEL FOR CAMPAIGN EVENTS FOR  OTHER PEOPLE  AND OR ANYTHING CONNECTED TO HIS  OFFICIAL DUTIES WOULD THAT BE  A USE. THE QUESTION IS,  ARE WE  SAYING THAT, I THINK IN THAT  SENSE THEN, IF THEY ARE NOT TRAVELING  OR AVAILABLE  BECAUSE OF THESE SCENARIOS WE'VE  MENTIONED, IS THAT A PERMISSIBLE  USE OF  THE FUNDS?  

I AGREE THAT'S A QUESTION YOU  ARE AT SCHEME. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY  THE ANSWER SHOULD BE  YES YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT UNDER  THE IRRESPECTIVE TEST.  

I THINK I CAN'T. I FEEL  I'M STRUGGLING BACK AND FORTH SO  MANY TIMES WHEN GOING BACK AND FORTH  IT'S NOT AN EASY QUESTION. I THINK  FOR  US IRRESPECTIVE TEST WOULD APPLY  HERE IN THE SENSE THAT  REGULAR CITIZEN ERIC SWALWELL WOULD  NOT GET ANY OF THESE REQUEST TO  TRAVEL FOR OTHER CANDIDATES . AND  PART OF HIS DUTIES HE  WOULD NOT GET THESE REQUEST OTHERWISE.  NO ONE IS ASKING REGULAR CITIZEN  TO COME AND PROMOTE  THEIR CANDIDACY. IRRESPECTIVE OF  HIS POSITION AS A MEMBER OF  HOUSE LEADERSHIP AND  AS A CANDIDATE HIMSELF AND SOMEONE  WHO SUPPORTS OTHER CANDIDATE FOR  OFFICE THAT THESE CHILDCARE EXPENSES  WOULD NOT  EXIST IRRESPECTIVE OF  THAT.  

CAN YOU LET ME KNOW OR  HAVE  QUESTIONS OF LIMITS OF THAT LOGIC.  WOULD REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL  BE  AUTHORIZED TO USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS  TO PAY FOR DOG SITTING WHILE HE  WERE TRAVELING? IF NORMALLY HE WOULD  TAKE CARE OF HIS OWN DOG BUT UNABLE  TO BECAUSE OF HIS REQUEST FOR  TRAVEL. CAN HE USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS  FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND DO THAT  SERVICE FOR HIM?  

I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T THOUGHT  ABOUT IT THAT WAY. BASED ON PRIOR  ADVICE FROM THE  COMMISSION ON  CHILDCARE BEING PERMISSIBLE AND  BASICALLY NOT BEING ABLE TO DO YOUR  JOB OTHERWISE, I THINK  THERE'S A DISTINCTION THERE BETWEEN  CHILDREN AND DOGS. I WOULD NOT NECESSARILY  THINK THAT'S PART OF THE ROLE.  

WHAT IS  THE DIFFERENCE? THEY ARE BOTH SERVICES  OR THINGS YOU NORMALLY WOULD DO  ON HIS OWN AS REGULAR CITIZEN  SWALWELL TO USE YOUR PHRASING.  NOW UNABLE TO DO BECAUSE HE'S TAKING  OFFICIAL TRAVEL. WHY SHOULD HE COULD  PAY  FOR ONE AND NOT THE OTHER WAS A  LEGAL REASON FOR THAT DISTINCTION?  

I DON'T THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT  QUESTION. THERE'S A  DIFFERENCE HAVING A DUTY TO TAKE  CARE OF YOUR CHILDREN  THAT THEY NEED TO BE SUPERVISED.  A DOG AND STAY HOME ALL DAY  WITHOUT ASSISTANCE. I SEE  YOUR POINT.  

YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT OFFICIAL  TRAVEL BUT THE REGULATION SPEAKS  TO OFFICIAL DUTIES IN GENERAL.  DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD COVER PERIODS  IN WHICH REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL  IS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR A  PERIOD?  

WE DID NOT FIND THE NEED TO ASK  THAT QUESTION.  IT'S GENERALLY  THE FAMILY RESIDES IN DC TO BE TOGETHER.  THAT WAS NOT A FACTUAL QUESTION  THAT NEEDED ANSWERING. IN  THAT SENSE, NO, WE HAD NOT CONSIDERED  IT.  

EXPLAINED TO ME THE DIFFERENCE.  WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TAKING  AN OFFICIAL TRIP AND DOING YOUR  9-5 JOB IF THOSE ARE PART OF YOUR  OFFICIAL DUTIES AS A REPRESENTATIVE.  WOULDN'T BOTH ENTITLE  YOU USE FUNDS FOR CHILD CARE?  

MAYBE SO.  THERE'S A QUESTION  WHETHER -- WHATEVER THE JOB WAS  IN  THIS SENSE IT COULD  EXIST IRRESPECTIVE. IN  THIS INSTANCE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE  FACTS TO APPEAL TO THAT. I SEE WHAT  YOU'RE SAYING TRYING TO DETERMINE  WITH THE LEGAL LINE IS. IN THIS  SENSE  THE 9-5 -- I  DON'T KNOW. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER  FOR THAT. I THINK THAT MORE IN TERMS  OF THE  DAILY COMMUTE AND SOMEONE NOT BEING  AVAILABLE AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT  MAY BE THE CASE IF YOU ARE DOING  OFFICIAL DUTIES.  YOU ARE AT THE CAPITOL AND DOING  YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES. IT  COULD APPLY.  

THAT'S HELPFUL TO  KNOW. WE RAN THROUGH AN ADVISORY  OPINION BUT SITTING AT A LITTLE  RULE AND A LEGAL  INTERPRETATION OF PERSONAL USE.  IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE  RULES SET OUT IN DRAFT B  WOULD OPEN THE DOOR TO THE USE OF  CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR CHILD CARE  DURING  WORK PERIODS. MAYBE DOG SITTING  SERVICES, MAYBE ANY OTHER SERVICES  THAT ARE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS MAY  PERFORM THEMSELVES THAT IS INTERFERED  WITH BECAUSE OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL.  SUPPOSE THAT REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL  CAME TO YOU  AND SAID THIS  WEEK AND IS PLANNING TO PAINT  MY HOUSE. I HAVE ALL THE STUFF AT  MY HOUSE. I WAS GOING TO SPEND THE  WEEKEND TO PAINT MY HOUSE BUT I'VE  ASKED TO GO OVERSEAS AND CAN'T DO  IT ANYMORE. IT'S INTERFERING  WITH MY PAINTING OF THE HOUSE. CANNOT  USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR SOMEONE TO  PAINT MY HOUSE? IS  THAT ALLOWED UNDER THE LOGIC OF  DRAFT B?  

I DON'T. THE PAINTING OF THE  HOUSE AND  SERVICES IS DIFFERENT  THAN CHILDCARE. A LINE HAS TO BE  DRAWN.  

WHAT IS YOUR LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR  THE STATUTE OR  REGULATIONS THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT?  

THE  PLAN  IRRESPECTIVE TEST. THE OBLIGATION  TO PAINT THE HOUSE OR FEEL THE NEED  TO PAINT YOUR HOUSE EXIST IRRESPECTIVE  WHETHER OR NOT YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS,  WHETHER YOU'RE TRAVELING IS A MEMBER  OF CONGRESS OR TRAVELING AS PART  OF YOUR CAMPAIGN. PAINTING THE  HOUSE IS NOT THE SAME AS ENSURING  YOUR CHILDREN ARE TAKING CARE  OF.  

DO YOU HAVE ANY STATUTORY  OR REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR THAT  DISTINCTION?  

NO, OTHER THAN WHEN WE  ARE DISCUSSING CHILDCARE SPECIFICALLY,  BOTH THE IRRESPECTIVE TEST CAN EASILY  BE APPLIED NOT APPLIED TO THE PAINTING  OF THE  HOUSE SITUATION AND THERE ARE TWO  ADVISORY OPINIONS SPECIFICALLY ON  THE CHILDCARE. I DON'T THINK WE  ARE TAKING A LEAP IN TERMS  OF TRADING NEW ABILITIES  CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR ANY SERVICES  THAT WERE POSSIBLE BUT  WERE NATURALLY  EXTENDING THE PRIOR COMMISSIONS  OPINION ON CHILDCARE SPECIFICALLY.  

A QUESTION  FOR POLICY. I WOULD LIKE YOUR VIEWS WHETHER  UNDER THE LOGIC OF DRAFT B,  A CONGRESSPERSON COULD SPENT CAMPAIGN  FUNDS FOR DOG SITTING OCCASIONED  BY  OFFICIAL TRAVEL.  

I WOULD LIKE TO JUMP IN AND GIVE  MY OWN PERSPECTIVE IF MY COLLEAGUE  WOULD ALLOW. WE HAVE SOMEBODY  WHO COMES BEFORE THE COMMISSION  AND ASKS FOR ADVICE ON A SPECIFIC  TRANSACTION. THAT IS THE WAY THE  ADVISORY OPINION PROCESS WORKS.  THEY POSE A SPECIFIC TRANSACTION  AND WE GIVE THEM AN ANSWER ON THAT  SPECIFIC TRANSACTION. ANYBODY WHO  IS CONTEMPLATING ACTIVITIES THAT  ARE NOT WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS  OF THAT REQUEST AND THE FACTS OF  THAT REQUEST CANNOT RELY ON THIS  TO DO OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT  ARE NOT ASKED OR ANSWERED YOU. THIS  IS NOT A REQUEST ABOUT  DOG SITTING. IT IS NOT A REQUEST  ABOUT 9-5 CHILDCARE DURING THE NORMAL  WORKDAY. IT IS A REQUEST ABOUT A  SPECIFIC SET OF  CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE REQUESTER  HAS PROPOSED ARE RELATED DIRECTLY  TO HIS CAMPAIGN AND OFFICIAL DUTIES  AND STATUS. NOT ONLY AS CANDIDATE  HIMSELF BUT AS MEMBER OF  THE LEADERSHIP WHICH IS ALSO RELATED  TO HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND CAMPAIGN  DUTIES. WE  HAVE CHILDCARE AND NOT THE REGULATIONS  THAT'S WHY THEY COME TO US. WE ARE  LEFT WITH THE RESPECTIVE TEST BY  CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATION.  UNDER THESE SPECIFIC FACTS  THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED, I BELIEVE  WHAT THE  REQUESTER HAS ASKED FOR IS VERY  MUCH IN LINE WITH OTHER REQUEST  THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND I'M PREPARED  TO SUPPORT DRAFT B WHICH IS IN LINE  WITH  PRECEDENTS AND APPLY THE RESPECTIVE  TEST TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS  AND  WOULD -- JUST TO BE CLEAR AND NOBODY  CAN USE THIS AS PERMISSION TO PAY  FOR THEIR DOG SITTER.  

IT'S UNLIKELY A JUDGE WOULD CONSIDER  THAT LINE OF  QUESTIONING BADGERING. THERE IS  STILL A QUESTION ON THE TABLE WHICH  WE ARE ENTITLED  TO GET IT.  

MY QUESTION IS WHAT THEIR VIEW  IS OF THE LOGIC OF DRAFT B  AND WHETHER IT  WOULD AUTHORIZE A CANDIDATE TO USE  CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO PAY FOR DOG SITTING  SERVICES THAT WERE OCCASIONED BY  OFFICIAL TRAVEL.  

AS TO  DOG SITTING,  THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE COMMISSION.  I CAN SEE WHERE WE WOULD SAY  YES AND DEPENDING  ON THE FACTS PRESENTED BUT NO THAT  WOULD HAVE TO BE REPORTED ON  THE REPORT. I  WOULD  NOTE -- SINCE WE ARE ASKING SPECIFICALLY  ABOUT DRAFT B THEY GUESS ANSWER  FOR  THAT IS HAS A SORT OF HOWEVER ON THE END  OF IT. ANY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH  TRAVEL THAT INVOLVES A  PERSONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE INCREMENTAL EXPENSES THAT  RESULT FROM THE PERSONAL ACTIVITIES  ARE PERSONAL  USE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DOG SITTING  THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE  TO CONSIDER GIVEN ALL THE FACTS  AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT  ARE PRESENTED. WE HAVE  ADVISORY  OPINIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, 1987-11  WHICH APPLIES THE LOGIC IN THE  DRAFT  B RESPONSE  WHERE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS ASKED  WHETHER SHE COULD TRAVEL TO AND  PAY FOR A LANGUAGE  IMMERSION COURSE AND  THE COMMISSION SAID  YES. HOWEVER, ACTIVITIES OFFERED  AT THE RESORT WHERE THE COURSE IS  BEING HELD -- IT'S  THE  INCREMENTAL EXPENSE THAT THE COMMISSION  HAS PREVIOUSLY HELD AS PERSONAL  USE BUT DOG SITTING,  I SUSPECT THERE ARE TWO  ANSWERS FLOATING AROUND AT  THE  TABLE. I'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH  ON IT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER  THAT WHEN  IT COMES IN.  

CAN I ASK SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS  BEFORE YOU GO? ONE, IT'S NOT  ANYTHING THAT EXIST IRRESPECTIVE.  IT'S A COMMITMENT, OBLIGATION  OR EXPENSE. DOES THAT LIST PROVIDE  ANY GUIDANCE UNDER THE STATUTE FOR  WHAT WOULD BE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE  THE  BUCKET?  

IS THAT QUESTION FOR  ME?  

LET ME ASK  THE COUNSELOR.  

YOU ARE  RIGHT.  OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S NO QUESTION THERE'S  OBLIGATION TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR  CHILDREN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.  THAT CHILDREN  EXIST IRRESPECTIVE AS WELL. THE  QUESTION BECOMES THEN  WHETHER THOSE EXPENSE ONLY  EXISTED BECAUSE OF THIS  PARTICULAR TIME. AS WE ARE CLEARLY  STATING AND STATING OUR  OPINION, THERE  ARE TIMES WHERE THE CHILDCARE  IS NECESSARY AND NOT  BECAUSE OF CONGRESSMAN  SWALWELL'S  DUTIES. IN THOSE  TIMES, THOSE ARE PAID BY PERSONAL  FUNDS. THERE IS THAT  QUESTION WHETHER IT IS  EXISTING IRRESPECTIVE. I THINK  CHILDCARE IS ONE OF THOSE UNUSUAL  THINGS. ONE, IT BEING EXTREMELY  EXPENSIVE ESPECIALLY FOR MULTIPLE  CHILDREN. WHERE IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE  WHERE YOU ARE PAYING  THAT FROM IF YOU'RE NOT A WEALTHY  MEMBER OF CONGRESS. WHERE THAT DIFFERENCE  FROM DOG SITTING. WITH THE OBLIGATION  TO TAKE CARE OF  THE KIDS  EXIST IRRESPECTIVE, SHARE. IN THIS  SENSE, WE DETERMINED THIS PARTICULAR  TIME WHEN YOU ARE OFF DOING OFFICIAL  DUTIES AND IN CAMPAIGN EVENTS THAT  THEN THAT WOULD  NOT EXIST IRRESPECTIVE.  

I HOPE YOU'RE NOT ASKED TO SIGN  ON ANY PARTICULAR CHILD. WE WILL  LEAVE THAT ASIDE. A FOLLOW  UP ON YOUR SORT OF  TEST OF  YOU ARE ONLY GETTING THESE INVITATIONS  BECAUSE YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS.  THAT GAVE ME SOME PAUSE. THAT'S  ANOTHER AREA -- YOU HAVE OFFICIAL  DUTIES AND WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT  CONCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR 80.  I DON'T THINK WE ARE OUTSIDE OF  YOUR REQUEST ABOUT WHAT THE  TEST IS. IT  OCCURRED TO ME THERE ARE A LOT OF  THINGS FOR WHAT ONE RECEIVES  AN INVITATION. THAT'S A MEMBER  OF CONGRESS THAT ONE MAY NOT RECEIVE  AS A MEMBER  OF THE  GENERAL PUBLIC. THE POLICY  IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM  THE HYPOTHETICALS THAT HAVE BEEN  RAISED. MY QUESTION  IS TWO TYPE  OF HYPOTHETICALS.  WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT IF YOU CAN'T  TREAT FOREIGN TRAVEL AT THE INVITATION  OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AS OFFICIAL  BUSINESS, WITH THAT APPLY TO STATE  AN EMBASSY PARTY? YOU GET INVITED  BY THE AMBASSADOR OF FRANCE  TO GO TO HIS HOUSE AND DRINK SOME  NICE CHAMPAIGN AND HAVE GOOD COMPANY  AND PROBABLY A STRING QUARTET DEPENDING  HOW CONSERVATIVE THEY ARE FEELING  THAT  THEY. THAT INVITATION WAS EXTENDED  TO YOU BECAUSE YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS  AND NOT A PRIVATE CITIZEN  IN CALIFORNIA, HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH  IT  FROM TRAVEL?  

I WOULD SAY FOR OUR REQUEST WE  ARE LIMITING OUR  FACTS TO OVERNIGHT TRAVEL AND IN  THIS CASE THE EMBASSY IN DC.  THE SWALWELL FAMILY RESIDES IN   DC WHEN CONGRESS IS  IN SESSION. I  DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION  ALTHOUGH YOU COULD EXTEND IT IF  WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING ABOUT ONLY  OVERNIGHT  -- YES BECAUSE YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS  AND GOING TO A PARTY. THAT WOULD  NOT BE OTHERWISE THERE. IS A  PART OF YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES? THERE'S  A QUESTION  THERE. FOR WHAT I  THINK THE DISTINCTION IS FOR OUR  FACTS WHEN TALKING ABOUT TRAVELING  FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUPPORTING ANOTHER  CANDIDATE  AND OR AN INVITATION A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT  WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OVERNIGHT AND  TALKING  ABOUT DOING SOMETHING BESIDES ATTENDING  A PARTY. I  WOULD AGREE THAT IS A CLOSE LINE.  

HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT SOVEREIGNS  ARE INVOLVED? IMAGINE AND I DON'T  KNOW  HOW MUCH YOU BEEN A COUNSELOR. IMAGINE THERE'S  A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION THAT CREATES  A BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT YOU CAN  ONLY SIT ON IF YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS.  THEY HAVE A BOARD MEETING. YOU DECIDE  TO TRAVEL TO ATTEND THE BOARD MEETING  BECAUSE THE BYLAWS, HYPOTHETICALLY  SAY YOU HAVE TO CAST YOUR VOTE IN  PERSON. YOU COULD NOT SIT ON THE  BOARD UNLESS YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS  AS A MATTER OF CORPORATE LAW. IS  THAT  IRRESPECTIVE?  

I THINK YOU COULD SAY IT GETS  CLOSE  TO THERE. BUT FOR YOUR  POSITION, THAT EXPENSE MAY NOT EXIST  ESPECIALLY REQUIRED TO TRAVEL IN  PERSON. IF I HAD A CLIENT CALL ME  AND ASK ME THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT'S  NOT A GREAT IDEA. IN TERMS OF THE  LEGAL ARGUMENT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT  WHETHER IT  EXIST IRRESPECTIVE. IT'S HARD TO  ARGUE YOU HAVE THAT OBLIGATION TO  FLY TO THAT  BOARD MEETING IRRESPECTIVE OF YOUR  POSITION.  

 THANK YOU.  

I THINK WE'VE  GONE FAR ENOUGH  FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF THIS REQUEST  ARE. TALKING WEATHER DOG SITTING  OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, DRAFT  B AND I WOULD  SAY MYSELF AND NOT TO GIVE IT AWAY  BUT GIVING IT AWAY COMMISSIONER  ELLEN WEINTRAUB   AND I ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT DRAFT.  WE'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT HAS  TO BE  A RESULT OF CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY AND OFFICER  HOLDER ACTIVITY AND CLARIFY WHAT  THOSE ARE. THE REASON WE CAN GET  INTO THE DISCUSSION OF CHILDCARE  IS THE COMMISSION HAS  ADDRESSED CHILDCARE IN EIGHT OWES.  IF YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT  DOG SITTING OR WALKING THEN SUBMIT  A REQUEST. I SUGGEST YOUR CLIENT  SAVE MONEY. IT'S NOT THE BEST USE  OF YOUR TIME OR OUR TIME. WE ARE  HERE SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE THE  EIGHT  OH AND MJ FOR TEXAS THAT PUT CHILDCARE  ON THE MAP. WE'VE MADE  IT CLEAR THAT IF IT TOUCHED ON ANY INSTANCE  WHERE TRAVEL BECAME PERSONAL RELATED  OR CAMPAIGN-FINANCE RELATED THERE  WOULD BE A RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTE  THAT AND BE ABLE TO CLARIFY THAT  IN YOUR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.  WE CONTEMPLATED THERE'S A POSSIBILITY  THIS COULD BE TRAVEL THAT INCLUDES  BOTH BUT THEN  BECOMES INCUMBENT UPON THAT OFFICEHOLDER  OR CANDIDATE  TO DISTINGUISH IT SUCH. IF NOT,  IT COULD BE PERSONAL USE.  THANK YOU.  

I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.  YOU MENTIONED THAT REPRESENTATIVE  SWALWELL  AND HIS FAMILY LIVED IN  THE AREA. SUPPOSE THEY DID NOT.  YOU PROBABLY AGREE THAT  TRAVELING TO WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR  VOTES IN COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND  ALL THAT NORMAL WORK DURING A WORK  PERIOD IS A PART OF THEIR  OFFICIAL DUTIES. RIGHT?  

SHIRT.  

IF REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL RELIVING  
     IN CALIFORNIA AND HE WERE TRAVELING  TO WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR A  WORK PERIOD, WOULD THAT BE  OFFICIAL TRAVEL THAT WOULD FALL  UNDER THE FOUR CORNERS OF THIS AO?  
     

I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT UNDER THE  FOUR CORNERS OF THIS AO   BECAUSE WE ARE ONLY ASKING ABOUT  OVERNIGHT TRAVEL. IF YOU ARE  ASKING SPECIFICALLY -- I SUPPOSE. I SUPPOSE YOU COULD  ARGUE THAT. IN  THIS CASE FOR THE CONGRESSMAN AND FAMILY  THAT'S NOT A WORKABLE SCENARIO WHERE  WE HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THE ANSWER  TO THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THE FAMILY  TRIES TO BE TOGETHER IN THE SAME  PLACE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ESPECIALLY  WITH THEIR KIDS BEING SO YOUNG.  TRAVELING TO DC TO CAST YOUR VOTE  IS OFFICIAL DUTY. NO QUESTION ABOUT  THAT. I THINK IN  THAT CASE, YOU START GETTING INTO  WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION  BELIEVES A MEMBER  OF CONGRESS SPOUSE SHOULD STAY HOME  TO WATCH THE KIDS OR THAT SHOULD  BE PERSONAL FUNDS BEING SPENT  ON THAT FOR SOME MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS WHO  DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.  EITHER TO LIVE IN TWO PLACES OR  TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH AND ENSURE  THE CHILDREN ARE TAKEN  CARE OF.  LIFE HAS CHANGED A LOT IN TERMS  ON WHO HAS TO WORK AND WHO CAN STAY  HOME AND WATCH THE KIDS. I DON'T  KNOW IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO  WEIGH IN ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT  OPINION. THERE'S A REASONABLE ARGUMENT  IT COULD  BE  MADE.  

WITH THE REVERSE BE TRUE? IF  REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL LIVES IN  THE DC AREA AND GOES BACK  FOR DISTRICT  WORK PERIODS WHEN CONGRESS IS  ON RECESS. DO YOU THINK THAT FALLS  UNDER OFFICIAL TRAVEL UNDER THE  FOUR CORNERS OF THIS  SUCH AS IF HE'S TRAVELING  BACK TO CALIFORNIA THAT'S OFFICIAL  TRAVEL FOR WHICH HE COULD USE CAMPAIGN  FUNDS FOR CHILD CARE FOR HIS CHILDREN  HERE IN DC?  

IN THE SENSE WHEN WE LOOK AT  THOSE QUESTIONS NORMALLY IN THIS  CASE THE FAMILY IS TRAVELING BACK  AND FORTH TOGETHER. WEATHER OR NOT  YOU ARE HEADING BACK TO DO A CAMPAIGN  EVENT MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH  IT. I THINK IF YOU ARE  ESTABLISHING A PLACE THAT YOU AND  YOUR FAMILY HAVE CHOSEN EITHER DC  AND/OR  CALIFORNIA THEN THE COMMISSION WANT  TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT ONE IS  CONSIDERED A HOME  AND ONE IS  CONSIDERING TRAVELING.  I SUPPOSE -- I THINK IT'S AN  EASIER ARGUMENT GOING TO DC TO  CAST  YOUR VOTES. THERE'S AN ARGUMENT  FOR  SURE.  

I WANT TO GET A CLEAR ANSWER.  DO YOU THINK THAT TRAVELING FROM  THE DISTRICT OF DC OR DC TO  THE DISTRICT IS THE KIND OF OFFICIAL  TRAVEL THAT WOULD BE COVERED  BY THIS AO?  

I  DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY. I SEE  IN OUR PATTERN  WE ARE REQUESTING FOR IT IS  SPECIFIC TRAVEL THAT IS NOT IN THE  REGULAR BUSINESS OF  DOING YOUR STANDARD GOING TO THE CAPITAL AND  OR GOING BACK TO THE DISTRICT. THAT'S  NOT WHAT WE ARE ASKING. WE ARE ASKING  ADDITIONAL TRAVEL KIND OF EXTRAORDINARY  TRAVEL BEYOND  THE REGULAR DAY-TO-DAY WORK.  

I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE REQUEST.  THE REQUEST SAYS TRAVEL AT THE REQUEST  OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR OTHER  ENTITIES BECAUSE OF HIS STATUS AS  A MEMBER OF CONGRESS. THIS COVERS  ANY ENTITY THAT REQUEST A  VISIT FROM REPRESENTATIVE  SWALWELL BECAUSE HE'S A MEMBER OF  CONGRESS. DO YOU DISAGREE  IT'S  WHAT YOU WROTE AND THAT'S THE SCOPE  OF  THIS REQUEST ?   

NO, THOSE ARE MY WORDS.  

IF THE LOCAL POLICE CHIEF OR  LOCAL OFFICIAL INVITES REPRESENTATIVE  ELLEN WEINTRAUB TO TAKE A TOUR OF  HIS FACILITY BACK IN HIS DISTRICT  THAT'S OFFICIAL TRAVEL COVERED  BY THIS AO  REQUEST.  

IT WAS NOT WHAT WE  WERE CONTEMPLATING WHEN WRITING  IT. I SUPPOSE IF IT'S AN OFFICIAL  REQUEST THAT'S POSSIBLE. WHETHER  OR NOT A TOUR IN ITSELF IS TRAVEL  MONEY TO BE COVERED  OR  SOMETHING WE CONSIDERED USING CAMPAIGN FUNDS  FOR, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. I'M NOT  SURE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE THINKING  IN DOING. I WANTED TO BE MORE BROAD  AND MAKING SURE WE WERE SPECIFIC  IT COULD BE A GOVERNMENTAL NONPROFIT  ORGANIZATION OR ALIKE IN THAT SENSE.  THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING WE WERE  CONTEMPLATING.  

I THINK WE ARE ALL AWARE  THAT REPRESENTATION MADE DURING  THE COMMISSION'S MEETING CAN BE  RELIED UPON IN THE AO AND HAD THAT  REPRESENTATION  IT WAS NOT THE  INTENTION BUT WOULD COVER TRAVELING  TO CALIFORNIA BACK AND FORTH OR  GOING TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR  ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT REPRESENTATION,  I'M CONFIRMING, THAT IS NOT THE  INTENT OF THIS REQUEST. I'M TALKING  TO YOU , COUNSEL.  

THAT IS CORRECT.  

WE NEED NO LONGER GO ON THE STRENGTH  OF THE DISCUSSION OR TALKING ABOUT  THIS  IN THAT. I DON'T MEAN TO BE BLUNT  AND THE CHAIRMAN CONTROLS THE MEETING.  IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR THAT SOME  ARE SUPPORTING ONE OR  THE OTHER. WOULD ASK THE  REQUESTED  WHICH DRAFT -- YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO  REVIEW BOTH DRAFTS BUT DID NOT RECEIVE  A COMMENT. YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE?  

I THINK,  OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD  LIKE TO  USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS IF THE COMMISSION  FINDS IT'S PERMISSIBLE FOR THESE  TYPES OF  TRAVEL. AS WHAT WE WROTE THIS FOR  US TO GET GUIDANCE. I DIDN'T COME  WITH A  PARTICULAR VIEWPOINT OR WANTING  TO PUSH ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. WE  WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT  WAS THE COMMISSION'S OPINION THAT  WE CAN USE  IT FOR. 
     

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT DRAFT B PROVIDE  YOU GUIDANCE THAT YOU ARE SEEKING?  

YES.  

THANK YOU.  

I HAVE A FEW MORE  QUESTIONS.  

IT WAS REPORTED LAST YEAR THAT  REPRESENTATIVE ELLEN WEINTRAUB HAD  TAKEN  A TRIP TO CARTER AT THE REQUEST  OR INVITATION OF  THE U.S. QATARI BUSINESS COUNCIL.  PART OF THAT TRIP INVOLVED HIM AND  HIS WIFE TAKING  A CAMEL TOUR WITH A BUNCH OF OTHER  REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SPOUSES.  IS THAT THE KIND OF TRAVEL.BE COVERED  BY THIS REQUEST?  

WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE  CAMEL TOUR. YES,  THE TRAVEL BY REQUEST OF A FOREIGN  GOVERNMENT TO TOUR ALERT MORE ABOUT  HOW THE GOVERNMENT OPERATES  AND RELATIONS BETWEEN THE U.S. AND  THOSE FOREIGN  GOVERNMENTS. YES, THAT'S WHAT WE  ARE ASKING.  

 THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR  ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS. FOR MYSELF,  WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE TO  ME AND COUNSEL HAS BEEN CANDID.  SHE AGREES THAT REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL'S  
     CHILDREN WOULD EXIST RESPECTIVE  OF HIS OFFICE AND CAMPAIGN.  HE STILL HAS HIS CHILDREN TO CARE  FOR. BETWEEN THE  CHAIRMAN, ME AND OTHERS WE  HAVE 10 CHILDREN UNDER 18. I KNOW  A  LITTLE BIT 
     ABOUT WHAT THAT'S LIKE. TO ME, TO  THE AVERAGE PERSON LOOKING AT THIS,  THIS IS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS LOOKING  TO SPEND CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR A NANNY  SO HE CAN TAKE INTERNATIONAL TRIPS  AT THE REQUEST OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS  WITH HIS SPOUSE. TO MEET THAT LOOKS  LIKE PERSONAL USE. TO THE AVERAGE  PERSON THAT LOOKS LIKE PERSONAL  USE. LOOKS LIKE COVERING PERSONAL  EXPENSES WITH CAMPAIGN FUNDS AND  FOR THAT REASON I'M SUPPORTING DRAFT  A WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THERE IS  A YES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE  SAID IN PREVIOUS AO'S. I WAS NOT  HERE TO VOTE ON THOSE  AO'S  AND  THEY SAY WHAT THEY SAY AND COVER  THE FIRST PART OF THAT  REQUEST.  

I  HAVE NO CHILDREN BUT I CAN BE RESPECTFUL  OF THE ISSUE OF CHILD CARE. AND  THINK IF IT'S DIRECTLY TO  ELECTION OR CANDIDATE ACTIVITY THEN  IT COULD BE A  PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITY. I DON'T THINK  THAT WAS  A NECESSARY  DISCUSSION. AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME,  I WILL BE READY TO SUPPORT  DRAFT B.  THANK YOU.  

NOTING MY CHILDREN ARE POLITICAL  INDEPENDENCE BEING  QUITE YOUNG, I UNDERSTAND  THIS DISCUSSION. I THINK THE FOREIGN  TRAVEL INVITATION OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT  IS  INTERESTING. FRANKLY, THE DISCUSSION  OF TRAVEL FOR OTHER CAMPAIGNS AT  THE TABLE DID NOT LEAVE ME  IN A POSITION TO VOTE FOR  DRAFT B. I DON'T SEE THE ARGUMENT  THERE AND I THINK IT CREATES  VERY TROUBLING DYNAMICS WITH THIS  IDEA AND INVITATION GIVEN AS A RESULT  OF BEING ELECTED TO CONGRESS  CREATES  COMMUNITY. IT IS WISE AND PRUDENT TO WORRY  WHERE THESE  THINGS GO. I WILL BE SUPPORTING  DRAFT A  WITH PERHAPS COMMISSIONER SEAN COOKSEY.  FOR ME ,  THE ANALYSIS FOR TRAVEL FOR OTHER  CAMPAIGNS SOLELY BECAUSE THEY'VE  BEEN ASKED  BY  LEADERSHIP -- CAN'T GET THERE. SORRY.  

ANY MOTIONS?  ANY DISCUSSION?  

I'VE BEEN A PARENT FOR  36 YEARS. COMMISSIONER SEAN COOKSEY  HAS ALSO BEEN  A LONGTIME  PARENT AND WE  KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE TO PAY  FOR CHILD CARE. BECAUSE I BELIEVE  IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS  PRECEDENTS OF THE  COMMISSION AND PREVIOUS  AO'S ,  IN RESPONSE REQUEST  TO  20 22-07.  APPROVED 22- 27-B.  

ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION?  

I WOULD REPEAT THAT I UNDERSTAND  THIS PRECEDENT BUT I HAVE  NOT HEARD AN ARGUMENT HOW THAT PRECEDENT  APPLIES TO OTHER CAMPAIGNS. I UNDERSTAND  YOU MAY SEE THAT BUT THERE'S  BEEN SILENCE BY  COUNSEL THAT, THAT IS  NOT WHERE THE LOGOS. I WILL NOT  BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.  

I WILL NOT LET THE COMMENTS  BY COMMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB  GO  UNANSWERED.  WITH REGARD TO MY  COLLEAGUE BEING A YOUNG FATHER, I'M A FATHER OF  SIX CHILDREN. MY WIFE ALSO WORKS  AND I AM VERY AWARE OF  THE LENGTH PARENTS HAVE TO GO TO  TO PROVIDE CHILD CARE. I AGREE  WITH  EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONER SEAN  COOKSEY HAS HAD TO SAY   WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE. I DO  SEE THIS AS NOTHING MORE A  MEMBER OF CONGRESS LOOKING FOR A  WAY TO HAVE DONORS PAY FOR ANY SERVICES  WHILE THEY WERE  OFF ON WEEKLONG TRIPS OVERSEAS.  TO BE HONEST, I'M  GOING TO PASS  JUDGMENT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT  THAT CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL  WOULD  HAVE SUCH A YOUNG CHILD AND WANT  TO LEAVE THEM IN THE CARE OF  SOMEONE ELSE FOR A WEEKLONG TRIP  OVERSEAS. AND USING DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS  TO PAY FOR THAT.  IT'S INAPPROPRIATE WE HAD TO ADDRESS  THIS QUESTION.  

I'M GETTING CLOSE TO CUTTING  THIS OFF. SOMEWHAT OUTSIDE  THE MOTION.  

I THINK THE COMMENT IS OUTSIDE  THE AO  REQUEST.  IT PUTS US  IN CONCERN AT THE CONSIDERATION  OF THE MATTER THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE  FOR WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE NOW.  I CAN UNDERSTAND IF SOMEONE DOES  NOT AGREE. I UNDERSTAND THE REASONING  FOR IT.  I CAN RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. I AM  NOT HERE TO MAKE JUDGMENT ON  ANYONE'S PERSONAL LIFE OR ANYTHING  LIKE THAT AND IT'S NOT A COMPETITION  TO SEE WHO IS MORE IN A  RIGHTEOUS PLACE. THANK  YOU.  

AND  LEAVING MYSELF OUT OF THIS BECAUSE  THE LAW DOESN'T CARE HOW GOOD  OF A FATHER I AM. ALL IN FAVOR OF  THE MOTION.  

"AYE".  

OPPOSE .  

 NO.  

I'M IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.  

MOTION FAILS WITH THREE  IN FAVOR.  

 THANK YOU. IN DRAFT AND VERY  OPINION 22  2-07 I MOVED APPROVAL  OF  AGENDA 
     22-27-E WHICH IS DRAFT A.  

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?  

"AYE".  

OPPOSED?  

 NO.  

MOTION FAILS  IN THREE. 
     

I SUGGEST WE DIRECT THE STAFF  TO PREPARE AND  ANSWER. THERE'S SOME OVERLAP BETWEEN  THE TWO DRAFT SO WE COULD PROVIDE  AN ANSWER TO THE REQUESTER  ON AT LEAST PART OF HIS QUESTION  AND THE REST OF THE ANSWER  WOULD BE WE COULDN'T.  

 I AGREE. COLLEAGUES, ANY DISCUSSION  FOR THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR?  

"AYE".  

OPPOSED ?  

NO.  

MOTION PASSES  WITH FIVE  IN FAVOR.  THANK YOU. MR. STAFF  DIRECTOR? ANY MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE  MATTERS THAT  REQUIRE OUR ATTENTION THIS MORNING?  

MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE NO SUCH  MATTERS.  

IN THAT CASE, WE  ARE ADJOURNED. MY THANKS TO  THE REQUESTER'S AND  THE COUNCIL.