This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on December 01, 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 the first of December, 2022. We have some documents, Madam vice chair. Good morning. The technological modernization and the commission determined -- a further move to suspend the role of the agenda documents and the commission may submit the documents number 22-50 feet B. Thank you very much. All in favor. Aye. We are off to a good start. The first item on the agenda is REG 2011. Good morning, commissioners. Documents 22-52 minus A and both drafts talk about how it applies to different types of Internet communications and allows disclaimers through alternative technological needs. The language of the amended definition varies between the two drafts. Thank you very much, counselor. Colleagues? Any discussion? Maybe a concession? Maybe absolutely. I would like the opportunity to talk about this. I want to thank you the chairman, and all of the other people who do the rulemaking. I want to thank the policy division staff who work a lot of long hours, weekends, not only working with the commissioners officers that are pushing this regulation forward but are answering questions from some of the internal critics, including myself. I do appreciate all of the staff work that has gone into this and let up to this meeting. I am happy to say that I am ready to support the draft on the agenda today. I posted the initial rule posted by the commission. It would extend the regulation online. There are some subsequent revisions to the rule. There is paid advertising on the Internet which is more within what we should be focused on. With the were revised regulation, it will not burden freedom of speech and I think it complies with the seizure all safeguards of the administrative procedure act. I have been an advocate and defender of the robust Internet exemption. As the commission said in setting up the Internet exemption, it is free for political speech where any individual has access to limitless political expression with minimal cost. That is truer today than it was in 2002. I think is why that exemption and a robust light touch regulatory approach to the Internet in a robust form is so important. I look forward to voting on draft B today. I look forward to answering some comments. Any comments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is kind of your baby. I am old school. >> As the chairman alluded, this has been a long time coming. This was first proposed with an idea of the rule. It got a lot of attention. I think it got about six comments the first time that we put it out for comment. It has been through the comments a few times. In 2017 alone, we got 150,000 comments. They supported updating these disclaimers. Eight has benefited from the input of a lot of people. As the commissioner said, the policy division has been working hard on this. There have been previous generations of people who have worked on this. Amy Rothstein and many others. I want to give a special shout out to Esther, who is from the policy division who is now on -- staff. I think that most of all, the fact that we are here today , it is different. Has been for the last two years where they've been dedicated to the process. I know from the outside, a lot of people are like, where did those documents come from that landed on the agenda? The way that they landed on the agenda is a lot of hard work. A lot of committeeman people behind the scenes. All those people should be acknowledged. There are two drafts in front of us. It is a little bit of a surprise to me that we ended up with two drafts. That is when we draft A. I think it does a better job of recognizing the unique features of the Internet and of advertising on the Internet. When people buy ads and are in print newspapers or in television programs, they are paying to get access to the audience that is already going to be there. Because of other things that are going on. People pay a lot of money for Super Bowl as because they know a lot of people will be watching football. There is no way to promote a particular ad on a television show. But on the Internet, it is different. People do not go to the Internet and flip through it the same way that you flip through a newspaper or you flip through channels on the television. It is too vast for that. There are searches, things come up in those searches. Uniquely, on the Internet, people pay to promote content that somebody else places. I believe the existing definition of public communication encompasses communications that advertisers will pay on social media sites. I know that there is some debate about that. People take oppositions on that. It is important that the notion of promoting other people's content on the Internet should be in the definition. That is one of the key distinctions between Drapeau -- draft A and draft B. It is my understanding that the way this is going to go, we will have votes on a particular text , if that passes, we will put out a comment, perhaps a revised definition of public communication for this reason. I have concerns about that process when we are adopting the definition today. We should consider revising that definition in a month. I am a big fan of public comment. I do not believe that we require further public comment. I think everything for these drafts was foreshadowed. I am a fan of public comment. If people want to do that, I would be in favor of that. I think that we will end up with the definition that we anticipate sticking. That is why I support A. At the time I will make a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other motions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As predicted, I need the approval of the agenda document 22-52-A. Special motion. All in favor. Aye. No. Further motions? In respect to the regulation for Internet disclaimers, agenda document 22-52-B which is draft B very Thank you, sir. All in favor. >> Aye. Opposed? It passes with five in favor. Thank you all very much. I share the things to the staff, I think that the commissioner deserves a public recognition for this. It has been a pleasure working with you, commissioner. The next matter on the agenda is a notice of proposed rulemaking not in the former regulation, 2013 am also not in this statement. 2013-01. Thank you, commissioner. It contains the draft supplemental notice of rulemaking. There is comment on the definition of public communication if it should include public Internet communications on another person's website, or advertising platform. If the newly adopted definition of public include posting another person's website, digital device, or an advertising platform. He will run for 30 days in the Federal Register. If the draft is approved, those parts of the draft that identify the definition of communication to be a proposal that is going to be considered by the commission unless they have adopted that definition. We request that any motion to approve the draft go to the counsel's office to make those changes. Thank you, I will answer any questions or you have. Thank you, counselor. Discussion? A very brief comment. I agree, I look forward to public comments. It is very important part of the process. I strongly encourage people to participate and submit comments. I would like to see them. From the public generally, from the bar, and other interested organizations. When we put it out for public comment, we mean it. I will go further. A former Democratic member of this commission recently noted that there is an indication that the federal election commission is awakening from its long slumber. We are seeing that today. We started this year by recognizing super PACs on form one. The smallest victories. Take what you can get. We have had unanimous bipartisan votes to update the regulations for the court decisions. The narrowest possible definition requires that. I'm glad that we are doing that. Today for the first time in many years , I say that is one of the original commenters on the initiation of the regulation. You are seeing substantive work on the regulations. This book is horrifically out of date. It is misleading and portions, it is confusing and others. It is a work in progress. That work has been delayed for too long. Let me echo the commissioners. These are sincere requests for comment. We do intend to use them in the regulatory space. Please participate. Any further discussion? Further motions? Commissioner cook? In respect to the technological modernization notice of the rulemaking , i.e. want the approval of agenda document 22-55-A very Thank you, commissioner. Discussion of the document? Counsel, I think you had a request. Can you give us the authority to make the changes that I discussed earlier? If I can amend my motion for the counsel to make appropriate edits and changes that discussed at the table. Further discussion? All in favor? Aye. The motion passes unanimously. The next motion on the agenda is a different regulation. Regulation 2021. Counsel, please take us away. Thank you, commissioner. Agenda documents 22-53-A and 22-53-B are proposed rulemaking on Canada's salaries. The use of campaign funds by a campaign committee to pay compensation. They differ from each other in a few respects. For example, agenda document 22-53-B says that the care cost goes under the definition of compensation. And that the $15 minimum way compensation cap will be adjusted for inflation. Other differences are described in the document 22-53-B. I can answer any questions that you have. Thank you, counsel. Colleagues? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that there is some Internet connection. I wish that everyone will bear with me. If it does get a little hazy, I've asked the vice chair to step in and make the motion on my behalf. I do want to say that this is a document that I'm going to be very pleased to support with the notice of proposed rulemaking this morning. It is an important initial step towards revising the regulations that need a lot of changes. I agree with you on it. There is a possibility for a more diverse group of Americans to run for public office. Something that I think I feel strongly about and my colleagues agree with. We considered this in April 2021 when I was the chair. We put it out for public comment the position for rulemaking and Ms. Islam shared her experience running for candid end of House of Representatives. They have emphasized how financial considerations, not just the ability to run a competitive race, but the ability to compete for basic expenses like healthcare and childcare impacts individuals choices to run for public office. The petition and in the comments that we see, is that working-class jobs, defined as manual labor, service industry and lyrical jobs make up 50% of the United States economy. Only 2% of the members of Congress have working-class backgrounds. This proposed rulemaking presents an opportunity for the public to share their experiences. And the commission can take into consideration revising any of the regulations. At the appropriate time, I would be more than happy to make a motion to approve this document. Thank you. Any other comments? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with everything that my colleague has just said. I want to give my thanks to Ms. Islam. It will sound redundant from the last discussion. We are hoping for robust comments on this. There are many options laid out. Different ways that we can go about it. I think that we will be particularly Lee aided by the comments on this. I hope that we will get comments not just from lawyers, but from people with real-world experience trying to run for office, for example. Or people who have considered running for office and felt that they were not able to do so. This is really an exciting opportunity to use the campaign finance system, which becomes a vehicle for the very wealthy to try and influence who gets elected and what gets enacted. This is a way to leverage the campaign finance system that will allow more people and people with more diverse sets of experiences to consider running for office and to add to the deliberations in Congress and contribute to the laws that we make in this country. I think this follows the line of advisory opinions that we have recently issued. Allowing for child care expenses to be paid for while candidates are campaigning. I see this as another way to make running for office more accessible for more people. I'm looking forward to the comments. I'm looking forward to the motion. Further discussion? I will add the bipartisan note to ask for comments. >> There is a significant public interest at this point. I anticipate that we will have a number of high quality candidates that we can -- Commissioner living? Thank you, commissioner. All in favor. Aye. I apologize. I'm getting used to having you guys in the room with me. It passes with five in favor. The vice chair, commissioner Broussard, one opposed, one opposed. My apologies. Next and final matter on our agenda this morning is the draft advisory opinion 2022 -04. Welcome. Good morning, thank you for having us. This is lower than I thought it would be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. There are two draft advisory opinions. The requester asks if the revocable trust that he opposes to establish during his lifetime, giving to federal candidates and political communities. Asked how the contributions from the trust should be attributed and if the limits enact in the time of the contributions being made by the trust would apply. Both drafts conclude that they may make contributions to political candidates because it would be a person under the Federal election campaign act and it is not a prohibited source. Both drafts also conclude that the index contribution limits the time that the trust makes contributions which would apply. The drops differ on how it should be attributed. Under draft A, contributions would be attributed to the trust. Under draft B, it would be based on the level of discretion exercised by the trustees and the recipients. Contributions made based on objective criteria will be attributed to the trust and Mr. blue. Contributions made by subjective criteria may be attributed only to the trust. We received one comment on the request and three comments on the drafts. Thank you, I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, counselor. Any questions for the Council? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the policy division for the presentation. My question for the requester's counsel is, I read your written comments that you submitted on the drafts, I found them very helpful. We received a number of outside group comments and I would be interested in them and I would be appreciating if you had a chance to read those and if there was any reaction or response to those? Sure. The only way to distinguish between these two drafts. It distinguishes the earmarked and non-earmarked contributions. It has a more modern FEC -- it drags the trust back to the rest of the earmarking in the law. The comments were complaining about them. It is not about identifying the source of funds. It identifies who makes the decision about it. That is how it all works. I am concerned , that if it is adopted it will be contrary to the statute and regulation. There is also a series of civil and criminal enforcement actions that go on the depression -- definition of earmarking. When they are making a decision about who to give it to or not. Draft A is adopted, it will run contrary to all these different residences. And create a sense of fun to Regine. In the last 40 years, it has been based on the decision-making regime. It is not dark money. Draft B separates out who is identified, then it will be identified. Who gets the trust and not Mr. blue, the source is still identified. They can see who that trust is giving to and other actions that the trust is making. Public record will still be accurate as to how people will judge who takes the contribution. That is the spirit to the letter of the contribution campaign. Thank you, that is very helpful. That is very correct. One of my concerns, I would be interested in your reaction of this. The attribution to Mr. blue, he was not directly involved in and did not give specific designations or earmarking, that is misleading to the public and it says that he has a degree of involvement when he did not. I am wondering which draft you think is going to advance the public's interest in knowing who is actually involved in the decision making and who gives the public more accurate information about who is contributing. The original request was for the trust to be attributed to us. Draft B separates out and tries to identify when he should identify it. It is not the matter of accurate record-keeping to the public, we need to make sure that the commission is active on that subject. It tells the public when the decision is with Mr. blue and when it is with the trustees. That decision matters. It is a situation where the public things that Mr. blue is making decisions when he did not. We are at a point where he might be deceased and you can look at the record on that. I think draft A is going to be more -- running more contrary to everything the commission has done to try and define precisely when the contribution is earmarking. Thank you. We will turn it over to the Council. Welcome, it is always nice to see you. I am not surprised. I think this does have the potential to become a document moving forward. We have seen some trusts in the past where the trustee name, the donor's name that is on the trust, it was pretty clear, only if you disclose the name of the trust , the person who pays the money to the trust, is the original source of the money. There is no requirement. I'm not a trust lawyer. I do not believe there is any requirement that the original donors name needs to be on the trust. One can easily envision a circumstance where someone sets up a trust. They put a friend in charge as the trustee. They have a nice long conversation. You know. You know the kind of people that I would not want to support going forward and supporting them. You know. And then what the public sees, is just ABC trust. There is no indication of where the money came from. I will be supporting draft A which will have more transparency with the public. I think you were at my first commission meeting. I do not think that I will change her mind. I will try. I think your question begs the question about who the actual contributor is. The complaint about dark money, the actual contributor is not disclosed. That is a fair complaint. I think the actual contributor is being disclosed. It is about who the actual contributor is. Here I think that I think it is smart. It identifies the original contributor when he is making the decision. And only address when the trustee is making the decision. You can argue, when somebody gives money and their wishes are being carried out, they should be identified as a contributor. This is not a component of the advisory committee. That is part of the wider commission president around earmarking. Your complaint as directed in the wrong place. If you want to broaden the definition of earmarking, this is not the place to do it. Maybe it was not actually a question. Thank you for your comments. I asked the question. Any further discussion, questions, or otherwise? I'm going to be supporting draft B. I want to say as we wrap up this year and all of these advisory committees, today, we are showing how great it can be. We have had a lot of great ones done this year that were done before I joined. We appreciate going through these questions for the ones that are critical as the campaigns evolve and change. We can make changes to the policy requirement and our staff who have to go throw these. They are quite helpful. They bring discussions. They make us think about the different regulations. >> The fact that we are able to answer many of these questions. The regulated communities want to ask us questions. Further discussion? I assume I am being recognized for a motion. Let's hold for a second. Are there any other questions? Thank you. With respect to the draft advisory and Mr. blue. The approval of document 22-53-A. All in favor . Aye No. The motion fails. Further motions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move approval of agenda document which is draft B. Colleagues, we will discuss the motion. All in favor. Aye. All opposed. No. There are two opposed. Thank you, counsel. Thank you to everyone in the policy. We have kept you very busy. Thank you. That exhausts the discussion this morning in open session. Mr. Chairman? I apologize. I was going to ask for a moment at the end. To acknowledge the passing of an era in campaign finance reporting. The reporting that goes on about us. For those that follow campaign-finance closely, Ken Doyle is a legendary figure in journalism. He started a weekly print newsletter called Money and politics in 1997 and has been room wording about the work of this commission and the issues with money and politics and regulation and ethics. Since 1997. Very recently, I regret that I did not catch this quickly enough, he left without telling anybody. He has retired from Bloomberg where he was working on writing about us. There were years when his newsletter was the source. Everybody read his newsletter. In order to find out what this agency was doing, he provided transparency on us and about us. Every meeting he would be sitting at the press table and if we had a meeting and he was not there, people would say, can we start without him? I guess we are going to have to find out. He is a very kind and soft spoken man. He was the source. Before people could turn into the webcast. He was the source of information on this agency. I will miss his presence in the back of the room in our open meetings. Godspeed, Ken. I hope you are listening out there. I think you might be listening in . We wish you well in your further adventures. Thank you. I will add on a little personal message. I was not as connected with this agency until recent years. I was litigating in this area. You talk about if we could start a hearing without Ken being present. There is one person who is always waiting in the courtroom. No one else would pay attention. There might be a little blurb somewhere. He always sat through the whole thing. Always talk to me afterwards and it is a passing of an error -- era . That person's approach to a very technical matter. I proceeded on when I was a young lawyer with more here. I appreciated it here at the commission. I also wish you well. Very good. Colleagues? Staff director, is there any management or administrative idiom matters requiring our attention? We are adjourned. Standby. [ Event concluded ]