This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on October 20, 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. ___________________ OKAY GOOD MORNING. BEFORE YOU ARE DRAFT ADVISORY OPINIONS DRAFT AGENDA DOCUMENT NO. 22-51-A (DRAFT A), AGENDA DOCUMENT NO. 22-51-B (DRAFT B), AGENDA DOCUMENT NO. 22-51-C (DRAFT C), AND AGENDA DOCUMENT NO 22-51-D (DRAFT D). THE REQUESTERS ASKED WHETHER THE DSCC MAY PAY FOR TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS LABELED IN THE REQUEST. AND WHETHER BENNET FOR COLORADO AND PEOPLE FOR PATTY MAY MAKE AT. DRAFTS AGENDA DOCUMENT NO. 22-51-A (DRAFT A), AGENDA DOCUMENT NO. 22-51-B (DRAFT B) AND AGENDA DOCUMENT NO. 22-51-C (DRAFT C) MAY USE THE CITY'S ACCOUNT. TWO NOT APPLY TO DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ACCOUNT. WITH RESPECT TO SOLICITATION NUMBER TWO, DRAFT A CONCLUSION THAT THE DSCC MAY NOT PLAYED FOR 2 USING FROM GOALS ACCOUNT BECAUSE DISBURSEMENTS FROM THAT ACCOUNT FOR SOLICITATION WOULD BE FOR THE IN USING THE FUNDS IN THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ACCOUNT PROVIDED THE ADVERTISERS DO NOT CONTAIN EXPRESS ADVOCACY, AND MAY COORDINATE WITH THE CANDIDATE COMMITTEES ON SOLICITATION TO IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. DRAFT C CONCLUDES THAT THE DSCC MAY PAY FOR BECAUSE SOLICITATION TO CONTAINS AND IS THERE FOR A PERMISSIBLY USED FUND AND MEDI-CAL. THAT DRAFT ALSO CONCLUDES THAT THE DSCC MACE COORDINATE SOLICITATION WITH THE CANDIDATE COMMITTEES. AGENDA DOCUMENT NO 22-51-D (DRAFT D) CONCLUDES THAT DSCC WILL PAY FOR ONE INTO SUBJECT TO REGIONAL COST ALLOCATIONS AMONG THE DSCC INCLUDING THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ACCOUNT. AT THAT THE CANDIDATE COMMITTEES MAY COORDINATE SOLICITATIONS WITH THE DSCC PROVIDED THAT THOSE ARE NOT REASONABLY APPLICABLE OR CONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITS ON COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY CAN COMMITTEE OR DSCC TREATS THOSE COSTS AS IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS AS COORDINATOR. WE RECEIVED THREE COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST INCLUDING ONE FROM THE REQUESTER. ONE COMMENT ON THE DRAFTSMAN REQUEST. TAKE YOU, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS TO GENERAL COUNSEL? THANK YOU. MS. LOPEZ, I READ YOUR COMMENTS THIS MORNING IN SUPPORT OF DRAFT D. I JUST HAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE DSCC AND CANDIDATE COMMITTEES WOULD USE THIS GUIDANCE GOING FORWARD? THE STANDARD THAT DRAFT D PUTS OUT, THAT THE SOLICITATIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE SUBJECT TO REASONABLE COST ALLOCATION AMONG ITS ACCOUNTS MANY THE DSCC ACCOUNTS, TO THE EXTENT THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO MORE THAN ONE PURPOSE. I GUESS I AM WONDERING WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS OF HOW YOU WOULD GO ABOUT DIVIDING UP THE PURPOSES OF THE TWO PROPOSED A SOLICITATIONS? WOULD YOU DIVIDED BASED ON SAY, PORTIONS THAT ARE EXPRESSING ADVOCACY AND PORCHES THAT ARE NOT? AND PORTIONS THAT ARE NOT A SOLICITATION PORTION, AND THOSE FORCES THAT ARE NOT? AND TRY AND GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IF A DRAFTEE WERE APPROVED, HOW YOU WOULD IMPLEMENT THAT OR GO ABOUT APPLYING IT TO THE PROPOSED SOLICITATIONS? APPRECIATE THE QUESTION COMMISSIONER. GRATEFUL TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE CLEAR THOUGHT THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THIS MATTER. YOU CAN TELL THE COMMISSION IS THINKING LONG AND HARD ABOUT SOMETHING. WHAT YOU SAID ON THE PERSON. AND COMMISSIONER, YOUR QUESTION, IT'S A GOOD ONE. I THINK THE REASON THAT I AM SO SURPRISES A DRAFTEE, IT ADOPTED STANDARDS THAT ASKS THE COMMUNITY DID YOU WHAT IT DOES AND SO MANY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. WHICH IS REASONABLY ALLOCATE WITH PURPOSE. THIS IS SOMETHING AS A PRACTITIONER I DO ALL THE TIME FOR MIKE CLIENT. I DO IT FOR BONE SCRIPTS. AND HOW I DO IN PRACTICE, TO GIVE YOU A PRACTICAL ANSWER, BECAUSE WE ARE 19 DAYS OUT, I WILL TELL YOU, IF YOU ADOPT DRAFT D, I WILL WAIT TO A SCRIPT FROM THE ADVOCATES AND LOOKED AT THE SCRIPT AND DO MY BEST TO LOOK AT EACH PORTION OF THE AD AND ASKED, BASED ON THE TEST LAID OUT, WHAT IS THE PORTION OF THAT? THERE ARE FIVE SECONDS OF THE AD, WHERE IT IS EXPRESSED ADVOCACY FOR SENATOR PATTY MURRAY . I DON'T HAVE A NITTY-GRITTY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF A DRAFT. IT LETS THE COMMUNITY TO WHAT IT IS PROVEN CAPABLE OF DOING FOR 30 OR 40 YEARS RIGHT? AND RECENTLY ALLOCATED BASED ON PURPOSE. I HOPE THAT HELPS. >> IF I CAN AS A CLARIFYING QUESTION. YOU NOTED WE ARE 19 DAYS FROM THE ELECTION. WE ARE IN THE BLACKOUT. FOR COMMUNICATION, SO ANY COMMUNICATION THAT FEATURES ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES, IS TRIGGERED INTO A FULL PARTY COORDINATED COMMUNICATION, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS EXPRESS ADVOCACY. SO, GIVEN THAT ANY ADDED PAID FOR BY THE PARTY COMMITTEE THAT FEATURES A CANDIDATE, IS A 100% A PARTY COORDINATED COMMUNICATION, HOW DOES THE ALLOCATION WORK THAN IF THERE IS ALSO SOLICITATION TO ITS? I WOULD FOR YOU TO 11, CFR. IT'S AS IF THE FEDERAL CANDIDATE APPEARS IN AD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOLICITING FOR A POLITICAL COMMITTEE, AND THE AD DOES NOT PASS TO THE CANDIDATE, YOU ARE NOT WITHIN THE CONTENT. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF THE QUESTION. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE NECESSARILY WITH IN THE 29 47. I WOULD REFER TO WHAT I THINK IS A GREAT STANDARD AND DRAFTEE, OF REASONABLE ALLOCATION BY PURPOSE. ONE FINAL CONCERN. THIS GOES TO THE WORKABILITY OF IT. YOU KNOW THIS, THESE PROBLEMS WITH HYBRID ADS IS THE DIVISION OF AUDIO ELEMENTS AND VISUAL ELEMENTS. YOU COULD IMAGINE A SITUATION IN WHICH THE AD IS JUST A STRAIGHT ATTACK AD FOR 30 SECONDS. AGAINST A CANDIDATE THE FEATURED CANDIDATE FOR THAT JURISDICTION. BUT FOR THE ENTIRE 30 SECONDS AT THE BOTTOM THERE IS A BETTER THAT JUST AS DONATE TO THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FUNDED. HOW WOULD I BE ALLOCATED? IS A GREAT QUESTION. IT IS WHAT I ASKED MYSELF LAST NIGHT. THIS TIME OF YEAR WE DO A LOT OF HYBRID ADVERTISEMENTS. AND THE AUDIO/VISUAL BALANCE IS ONE THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE DEALT WITH. I WAS SAY FIRST, GO BACK TO THE DRAFTEE. IT LETS THE PRACTITIONERS LOOK AT THE AD AND LOOK AT WHAT IS REASONABLE. I HAVE SEEN ADS IN WAYS I CANNOT PREDICT. I APPRECIATE THE STANDARD THAT ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY. I THINK IT BETTER CAPTURES THE PURPOSE. AND YOU HAVE A MORE LEGAL, EQUITABLE RESULT WITH THE CLIENT. IT ISN'T SO NARROWLY PRESCRIBED TO AN EXACT FORMULA. I THINK THE COMMISSION WANTS MORE GRANULE AS A DRAFTEE. LOOK FORWARD TO PARTICIPATING IN ROLL MAKING ON GETTING MORE GRANULAR. BUT FOR NOW, AS A PRACTITIONER, GIVES ME STANDARD I FEEL COMFORTABLE ADMINISTERING. AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, FOR ME, AND I CANNOT SPEAK FOR ANY PROTECTION OR, AND I CANNOT SAY THERE'S NOT ANOTHER REASONABLE WAY TO DO THIS, BUT FOR ME, IF A FULL AD IS AN ATTACK AD, AND LET'S SAY, 10% OF THE VISUALS BASE IS A SOLICITATION THE WHOLE TIME, I WOULD ALLOCATE 10% TO THE LEGAL ACCOUNT AND TELL THE CLIENT THE REST NEEDS TO BE PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNT. AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF THE DRAFTEE, IT LETS THE CLIENT OR PRACTITIONER MAKE A REASONABLE JUDGMENT CALL. THANK YOU FOR THE DIRECT ANSWER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. LOPEZ FOR THE ANSWER, BECAUSE I AM IN CONSIDERATION OF DRAFTEE. BUT I THINK YOU WERE TALKING AROUND WHERE THE LANGUAGE IS, AND WHAT THE COMMUNICATION IS. BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REPEAT IT, IF WE HAVE AN AD THAT HAS 90% ATTACK, AND HAS THE TAGLINE, HOW IS IT ALLOCATED? I WOULD BE CONSERVATIVE. I AM NOT A PRACTITIONER. THAT I WOULD NOT LET THE CLIENT PAY FOR MORE THAN 10% OF THE AD OUT OF THE LEGAL ACCOUNT. 90% IS AN ATTACK AD AND 10% BANNER ON THE BOTTOM DOESN'T UNDO THE FACT THAT THE REST OF THE AD IS EIGHT ATTACK AD. SO I WOULD ALLOCATE THAT AT 10%. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER. AS I SAID, I AM SUPPORTED OF A DRAFTEE. I HAD THE CONSIDERATIONS OF SWING MY COLLEAGUES WITH A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ALLOCATED PROPORTION. BUT I THINK THERE STATUES TO GET THAT GUIDANCE. AND YOUR ASSURANCES TO THE COMMISSION, I FIND HELPFUL. BUT I WOULD SAY, IF THERE DOES BECOME A CONCERN, AND YOUR THOUGHTS ARE CHANGING AND YOU'RE NOT AS CONSERVATIVE, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION TO ASK FOR AN OPINION REQUEST. I'M SATISFIED. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTE. I VERY MUCH WELCOME THE CHOICE TO COME BACK. I FOUND THE ABILITY TO BE VALUABLE. ABSOLUTELY. IF MY MENTALITY CHANGES OR I FIND IS A PRACTITIONER THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT MY CLIENT IS IN JEOPARDY AS TO WHETHER THE COMMISSION WOULD VOTE FOR ME, I WOULD ADVISE THEM TO COME BACK. MISSES WEINTRAUB? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU MISSES LOPEZ. I KNOW YOU GUYS WERE UP LATE LAST NIGHT GIVING US A COMMENT. HAVING SPENT THE TIME RECENTLY LOOKING AT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, OF WHAT WE CALL THE CRIME THE BUS ACCOUNT. DID YOU SEE ANYTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT ANY OF THE FUNDS IN THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ACCOUNTS WOULD BE USED OR SHOULD BE USED FOR EXPRESS ADVOCACY ISSUES? THAT IS INTERESTING. I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. BECAUSE I SPENT A LOT OF TIME LAST NIGHT REREADING NOT JUST HISTORY AROUND THE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, BUT A LOT OF THE COMMISSIONS AND OPINIONS AND A FULL HISTORY OF HOW WE HAVE GOTTEN HERE. STARTING WITH THE REGULATIONS OTHER RECON ACCOUNT. AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ON, THE REGULATIONS I THINK AS FAR BACK AS 1977 HAVE ACCEPTED THE DEFINITION OF A CONTRIBUTION EXPENDITURE RECON EXPENSE. A RECOUNT IS NOT TO INFLUENCE A FEDERAL ELECTION SO THERE FOR, WE WILL NOT RECOUNT EXPENSES OR EXPENDITURE. AND THEN THINGS GET INTERESTING WHEN BIGGER GET FAST. AND I'M SORRY, I'M NERDY OUT RIGHT NOW. BUT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS US. [ INDISCERNIBLE ] GETS PASSED. I'M MISSING AN IMPORTANT POINT IN MY JOURNEY. EVEN THOUGH WE COUNT EXPENSES ARE NOT EXPENDITURES, THE ACT HAS A DIFFERENT ENTERED WHEN IT COMES TO PROHIBITIVE AXLE RESOURCES. YOU CAN RAISE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU WANTED AND SPEND AS MUCH, BUT BECAUSE CORPORATIONS ARE PROHIBITED FROM SPENDING MONEY AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE FEDERAL ELECTION, THE COMMISSION HAS ALWAYS RECOGNIZED SOURCE LIMITATIONS ON THE RECOUNT ACCOUNT. SO YOU GET THESE TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS TO INFLUENCE OR IN CONNECTION WITH . AND THE REGULATIONS SET, RECOUNTS ARE NOT TO INFLUENCE A FEDERAL ELECTION BUT ARE IN CONNECTION. THAT IS THE FRAMEWORK WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING UNDER. BIGGER GETS PAST THAT IT RESTRICTS THE CANDIDATES AND PARTY COMMITTEES TO TOUCH SOFT MONEY IN CONNECTION WITH THE FEDERAL ELECTION. THE COMMISSION THEN GETS ASKED, WHAT ABOUT NOW? THERE ARE ALWAYS RESTRICTIONS, BUT NOW THERE ARE MOUNT LIMITATIONS BECAUSE OF THE CROW. CONGRESS CLEARLY INTENDED FOR COVERING RECOUNTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE FEDERAL COMMISSION. FEDERAL CANDIDATES AND PARTIES CANNOT TOUCH SOFT MONEY. YES, THE AMOUNT LIMITATIONS APPLY. NOW YOU HAVE A PICKLE. BECAUSE NOW THE AMOUNT LIMITATIONS APPLY, HOW DO YOU HAVE A SEPARATE LIMIT FOR THESE ACCOUNTS? HOW IS IT NOT SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL ELECTION LIMITS? AND WHAT THE COMMISSION DID AND WHAT THE REGULATED COMMUNITY DID TOGETHER WAS TO SAY, THESE EXPENSES AND THE RECOUNTS CAN ONLY BE FOR RECOUNTS. THEY CANNOT BE TO INFLUENCE A FEDERAL ELECTION. AND THAT IS HOW IT IS OKAY TO GET A SEPARATE LIMIT. BECAUSE OTHERWISE, WHY WOULD YOU RACE THIS EXTRA MONEY IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND IT TO INFLUENCE YOUR PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION? I'M ALMOST DONE. ON THE UNDER THE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, CONGRESS DID SOMETHING, TWO THINGS THAT ARE INTERESTING. FIRST, THEY CREATED THE COUNT FOR 3 PURPOSES. AND I KNOW THERE IS DISAGREEMENT ON THIS. BUT I WILL STATE MY POSITION BECAUSE I'M EXCITED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. I THINK CONGRESS VERY CLEARLY SET THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ACCOUNTS IS FOR RECOUNTS AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. THE TERM OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HAS A CLEAR PURPOSE. THEN CONGRESS DID SOMETHING FURTHER. IT EXEMPTED SPENDING OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ACCOUNTS. IF CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO AUTHORIZE AT LEAST SOME SPENDING, ON OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, THAT COULD BE TO INFLUENCE A FEDERAL LIKE ELECTION, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOUNT. SO I THINK THAT IS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR UNDER REGULATIONS, STATUTES OF OPINIONS, THAT SPENDING ON RECOUNT OR CONTEST IS NOT TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION. THE ELECTION IS OVER. THEY ADDED A THIRD CATEGORY OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND ACCEPTED THAT SOMETIMES THOSE OTHER PROCEEDINGS COULD, BY MEANS OF HOW THE PROCEEDING GOES INFLUENCE A FEDERAL ELECTION. AND EXEMPTED THE PARTY. THAT IS A JOURNEY I WENT ON TO LAST NIGHT, AND WHERE I AM. LONG ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. MR. WEINTRAUB, MISSES . I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON MY ORIGINAL QUESTION. ALL YOURS. THANK YOU. I'M GOING BACK TO WHAT I ASKED. DO YOU THINK THAT THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ACCOUNT IS ALLOWED TO SPEND MONEY ON COMMUNICATIONS? YOUR COMMENT THAT YOU SUBMIT CLASS I AND HER EXPLANATION JUST NOW TALKS ABOUT OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. CAN YOU TO FIND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO INCLUDE ADVOCACY AND COMMUNICATIONS? I WOULD DEFINE OTHER PROCEEDINGS TO INCLUDE A LEGAL PROCEEDING THAT TOUCHES ON EXPRESS ADVOCACY. I CAN'T SEE HOW ADVOCACY ITSELF WOULD BE A LEGAL PROCEEDING. THERE ARE TWO THINGS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PAYING FOR A PROCEEDING AND PAYING FOR FUNDRAISING. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THE TERM LEGAL PROCEEDING, NO. I CANNOT IMAGINE A LEGAL PROCEEDING THAT INVOLVES PAYING FOR AN EXPRESS ADVOCACY COMMUNICATION. AND I THINK THE COMMISSION IS DEALING WITH A DIFFERENT QUESTION WITH THE REQUEST ISSUE, WHICH IS WHAT IS A FUNDRAISING EXPENSE FOR THE LEGAL ACCOUNTS? AGAIN DRAFT D, WHICH PLAYS ON A STANDARD TO FIGURE THAT OUT. I AS A TENSIONER, THE GREAT QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER COOKSEY, 10% OF THE BOTTOM. THAT IS HOW I WOULD ALLOCATE. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO I WOULD NOT ADVOCATE THE COUNT. I WOULD SAY YOU PAY FOR THAT, BUT IF THERE'S A LEGAL SOLICITATION INVOLVED, I AGREE WITH THE DRAFTEE. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? KIND OF. I THINK IT IS INFORMATIVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD DO. YOU ARE MAKING YOUR REPRESENTATION ON HOW YOU WOULD ALLOCATE THE EXPENSES IN A PARTICULAR AD. YOU ACKNOWLEDGED, AND I THINK THIS IS CORRECT, THAT THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ACCOUNTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR EXPRESS ADVOCACY. COMMUNICATIONS. LET ME JUST SAY, I CERTAINLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WRITING OF THESE PROVISIONS. AND CONGRESS COULD'VE MADE IT A LOT EASIER TO IMPLEMENT IF THEY JUST RAISED THE LIMIT AND DIDN'T PUT THEM IN THE SEPARATE BUCKETS. BUT CONGRESS IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT. THEY CHOSE TO SAY, WE WILL HAVE THESE EXPANDED LIMITS WHICH ARE GENEROUS. OVER $100,000 AT THIS POINT. FOR EACH OF THESE ACCOUNTS. BUT THEY ARE FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSES. AND THE IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER TO IMPLEMENT IF THEY RAISED THE CONTRIBUTION. BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. SO WHEN I LOOK AT YOUR REQUEST, AS YOU DESCRIBED SOLICITATION TOO, THE COMMUNICATIONS WOULD INCLUDE BY ASKING FOR DONATION BY DISPLAYING A WRITTEN ONLINE WEBPAGE AND THEN, THERE IS FURTHER EXPLANATION ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD WORK. BUT THE COMMUNICATIONS WOULD ALSO EXPRESSLY ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST CANDIDATES OR POLICY POSITIONS OF CANDIDATES, AND ARE COORDINATED AND DISSEMINATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THEY ARE RUNNING. SO, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS DESCRIPTION OF THIS AD, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD BE AN ENTIRE AD THAT IS ALL ABOUT EXPRESS ADVOCACY FOR CANDIDATE, THE SAME CANDIDATE WHO WAS ON SCREEN IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THEY ARE RUNNING, AND THEN THERE IS A LINE ACROSS THE SCREEN THAT SAYS, DONATE TO THE LEGAL RECOUNT PROCEEDINGS FUND. YOU HAVE TOLD ME HOW YOU WOULD ALLOCATE THAT. BUT UNDER DRAFT D, AS YOU POINTED OUT, PEOPLE HAVE AUCTIONS. WHAT WOULD PRECLUDE SOMEONE FROM SAYING, WE ARE ONLY RAISING FUNDS IN THIS AD FOR THE LEGAL RECOUNT FUND UNDER THE FUNDS RECEIVED METHODS, WE WILL ALLOCATE 100% OF THIS AD COST TO THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FUND. IS THERE ANYTHING IN DRAFT D THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THAT? I THINK SO. I THINK THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE FULL POWER TO SAY, THAT IS NOT A REASONABLE ALLOCATION. DRAFT E IS VERY CLEAR. IF YOU PUT UP AN AD THAT IS 29 SECONDS OF EXPRESS ADVOCACY IN ONE SECOND ABSOLUTE HATRED, THAT IS NOT REASONABLE. AND I WILL SAY COMMISSIONER, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION, BECAUSE THAT IS ALWAYS THE CONCERN, HOW DO YOU ENFORCE IT? I GET IT. I WOULD, THIS IS REGULATED. REASONABLY ALLOCATING IN MANY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. AND AS COUNSEL, I DEAL WITH IT EVERY DAY. THERE IS ALWAYS A JUDGMENT CALL AROUND THE EDGES. BUT I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE PROVEN VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE DOING AND TO THE EXTENT THAT A COMMITTEE, ANY ENTITY, OPERATING IN THE SPACE GOES TOO FAR. THE COMMISSION CAN ENFORCE AGAINST THEM. AND I WAS ALSO SAY, I WELCOME RULEMAKING ON THIS TOPIC. I THINK DRAFT E ENTERS A TOUGH QUESTION IN A PRACTICAL WAY THAT GIVES GUIDANCE TO MY CLIENTS . WHEN THERE STILL TIME LEFT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ANSWER. I HAVE SENT OVER AGAIN AS A PRACTITIONER, AND THE COMMISSION ITSELF HAS EXPRESSED THE ADVISORY OPINION PROCESS IS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL TOOLS THAT THE THEY HAVE. IT WILL NEVER BE PERFECT. YOU ONLY GET TO OPINE ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTS. I TAKE YOUR POINT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSION WANTS TO GET MORE GRANULAR. AGAIN, I WOULD WELCOME RULEMAKING. WE ARE HAPPY TO SET A SUBMIT A REVIEW FOR RULEMAKING. AGAIN, I THINK THAT THESE ARE WORKABLE AND THE COMMISSION WOULD BE FREE AND SHOULD ENFORCE AGAINST SOMEONE WHO GOES TOO FAR. AND IS NOT REASONABLY ALLOCATED. >> I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. AND MY EXPERIENCE ON THE COMMISSION, WHEN THE COMMISSION SAYS, DO SOMETHING IN A REASONABLE WAY, PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE DIFFERENT DETERMINATIONS OF WHAT THEY THINK IS REASONABLE. IT IS DIFFICULT IN THE ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS TO FIND FOR VOTES FOR COMMISSIONERS. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE BEING REASONABLE, BUT WE DECIDED THAT THEY WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS REASONABLE WAS NOT. I FIND THAT IS A DIFFICULT HILL TO CLIMB. AND I AM CONCERNED THAT DRAFT E PROVIDE SO MUCH LATITUDE, THAT THE SCENARIO PROBABLY WOULD BE ADOPTED BY SOMEBODY. YOU WOULDN'T DO IT THAT WAY. BUT OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND SAY, I AM ALSO RUNNING ADS LIKE THIS, AND I WILL COME UP WITH MY OWN REASONABLE DETERMINATION WHICH IS AS I CAN DO IN THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM MY COLLEAGUES ON WHETHER THEY THINK THAT WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD FIND IT IN THE CONTEXT TO SAY, THIS PERSON SAID THEY THOUGHT THIS WAS REASONABLE. TO ALLOCATE 100%. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COMMISSIONERS ARE WILLING TO SAY, THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN USE A 100%. [ INDISCERNIBLE ] THAT IS MY CONCERN. IT LEAVES LATITUDE. [ INDISCERNIBLE ] DISCUSSION? MOTIONS? MRS. WEINTRAUB? I THINK WE GOT CLARIFICATION LAST NIGHT. I AM SUPPORTIVE OF AGENDA DOCUMENT NO. 22-51-A (DRAFT A). ON PAGE EIGHT, THE COMMISSION ASSUMES THAT SOLICITATION WOULD ALSO NOT MOVE FOR SUPPORTER ENCODES [ INDISCERNIBLE ] THAT INFORMATION CAN ONLY [ INDISCERNIBLE ] BASED ON THE COMMENT WE RECEIVED LAST NIGHT FROM THE REQUEST, IT WILL NOT. I THINK THAT SENTENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE DEVISED AND SUFFOCATED . SOLICITATION ONE WOULD NOT [ INDISCERNIBLE ] WITH THAT AMENDMENT, I MOVE APPROVAL OF AGENDA DOCUMENT NO. 22-51-A (DRAFT A). TOO MUCH IN? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSE? MOTION FAILS WITH ONE IN FAVOR. MADAM VICE CHAIR? BEFORE I MAKE THIS MOTION, I WANT TO COMMEND THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE GREAT QUICK WORK. FOUR DRAFTS ARE LOT. AND DRAFT D HAS A DIFFERENT LEGAL THEORY THAT WAS VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT. AND I KNOW I WAS CERTAINLY IMPRESSED BY IT. THANK YOU FOR THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL FOR GETTING US TO THIS POINT. AN ADVISORY OPINION I MOVE APPROVAL OF AGENDA DOCUMENT NO 22-51-D (DRAFT D). THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR. LET ME PAUSE BRIEFLY. AND THE DISCUSSION TO MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY THANKS TO COUNSEL. AND TO ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES. I THINK EVERYONE INVOLVED HAD A LATE NIGHT. I WILL SAY AS THE OFFICE ASKED AS AND FOR AGENDA DOCUMENT NO 22-51-D (DRAFT D), I OWE AN APOLOGY TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR HOW THIS WENT DOWN. I'M GLAD WE WERE ABLE TO GET THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT MATTER IS NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FOR REGULATION. THERE HAS BEEN TALK FOR THE NEED OF REGULATIONS. THIS IS AN EFFORT IN THAT DIRECTION. GOOD MORNING. AGENDA DOCUMENT CONTAINS A DRAFT NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY FOR PETITIONER FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION A NON-CONNECTED POLITICAL COMMITTEE. THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT AT WHICH CONDIMENTS CONDUITS IDENTIFY THE CONTRIBUTORS AND RECIPIENTS AND THE COMMISSION. THE NOTIFICATION SEEKS COMMENT ON WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD COMMENCE RULEMAKING BASED ON THIS PETITION? THE. WILL RUN FOR 60 DAYS. AFTER THE COMMENT. HAS CONCLUDED, AND AFTER THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, THE COMMISSION MAY DECIDE WHETHER TO INITIATE RULEMAKING. THANK YOU. HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? GOOD. ANY MOTIONS? REALLY AND PSYCHOMETRIC. THANK YOU. HAPPY TO TAKE A SHOT . WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY, CONDUIT REPORTING THRESHOLDS, I MOVE APPROVAL OF AGENDA DOCUMENT . SEE THANK YOU. DISCUSSION? IN FAVOR? THE MASH AND MOTION IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. I BELIEVE ON THE BEHALF OF ALL OF US THIS IS A SINCERE REQUEST FOR ENGAGEMENT BY THE PUBLIC. PLEASE FOLLOW UP WITH COMMENTS. VERY GOOD, THAT EXHAUSTS OUR AGENDA. ANY ADMINISTRATIVE OR MANAGER MATTERS REQUIRE OUR ATTENTION THIS MORNING? THERE ARE NO SUCH MATTERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE ADJOURNED. [ EVENT CONCLUDED ]