This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on May 4, 2023. 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 afternoon, the open meeting of May the 4th is in order. Happy May the fourth. Discussion from the vice chair. I moved to suspend the rule on the timely submission that the commission may consider a late submission document. Second the motion? All in favor. First officer revised audit procedures. I am very excited. This is for our committee to not receive public funds. This will significantly improve the way we audit. For many audit processes, has been long, efficient and opaque. We have gone above and beyond the solicit comment for the public. We are not required to solicit public comment or hold a hearing and a commission often does not do so I wanted thank Commissioner Trainor for partnering with my office on this project. [ Indiscernible ] this was an all hands on deck project that touched every department, fermata, information tech, are great stuff, we would not be here. Bear with me. Sorry, I have a lot of people think. And I'm very excited to do so. From audit I want to especially thank Dana Brown and her management team. [ Indiscernible ] her team provided practical insight to the oddest program. Policy, when you think deference to frontage, [ Indiscernible ] also think it to our great department head Pat Barack, the office of compliance, and [ Indiscernible ] I also want to think special counsel Larry Calvert for broad knowledge, Larry, we could not do this without you. Thank you. Finally I wanted thank the members of the public who submitted comments at public hearing. Now again, bearing with me as I walked through a few major elements. The audit begins with the notification letter to the committee. The main change will be the notification letter will be [ Indiscernible ] will improve the efficiency of audit verifying the document. Audit staff will then conduct fieldwork at the conclusion of the work, staff will provide committee with exit capital report detailing the factual basis of the finding. [ Indiscernible ] the biggest interiors that the committee will first be providing legal analysis, and therefore have the information necessary to meaningfully challenge anything needed. They can attempt to formally resolve any factual work, the audit staff or OG C group, or the community provides records and audit finding, issuing a draft. Matt if disputes remain, there committee can request an autumn. If the commission agreed stupid elite points, not [ Indiscernible ] the older program is redundant and will be revoked. The next episode in resignation contains the audit staff propose exoplanet, incorporates legal analysis. The commission will vote on the fighting and document the final report. What used to be a 54 process is effective without any loss in content, or what used to take up to five votes has been reduced to one. The process will be vastly more efficient. Following the adoption of final audit report the commission will publish an audit report, and one big change here that the commission will [ Inaudible - static ] this is an important change and promotes transparency and allows the public to understand facts of independent findings and legal determinations. Finally, if any funds are referred for enforcement, the commission may [ Inaudible - static ] an effort to smooth the transition, we are delaying the implementation of the approval to the next election cycle. The attentive amended's and other documents on the agenda are two [ Inaudible - static ] I'm really pleased with how the document came together and grateful to the entire staff we have received the ability to work together successfully for bringing this together. Thank you. Commissioner Traynor. I would like to think the audit staff, and -- For the willingness to guide us through the technical aspects of the audit process. We would not been able to do this without the office of senior counsel, with is an integral part of the audit process. In 1986 during the press cousin President Ronald Reagan quipped -- [ Indiscernible ] I can only imagine the confusion, fear and frustration experienced by those that find themselves going through the process. It is important to remember who the commission is dealing with when audits are conducted. More often than not, especially in the case of experienced candidates treasure, and state parties, we are dealing with individuals who have volunteered to dissipate in our political process. Obviously, in compliance, is important. Donors expect their contribution to go toward a candidates election, or committees advertising. Nor should they have two. The process should not be [ Indiscernible ] therefore, it is incumbent upon the commission to provide a process to protect the participants and political processes that does not experience but promotes and applies transparency before the commission today is a new audit process that strikes the appropriate balance for efficiency, orderly development of law, transparency, and encouraging volunteer compliance. This new process is a result of extensive public input, both from commenters, and a publican on the matter, and much back and forth among the staff, and my fellow commissioners to improve our process. Part of that negotiation, that these new procedures will not go into effect [ Indiscernible ] I would've preferred to see these new procedures take affect the media, and I intend to work with my colleagues to implement the ideas incumbent in this new procedure in the cycle audit. I'd like to highlight to the American people some of the new procedures that will be critical making this oddest process possible. The public will now know what to expect that every stage of the process, including scope, legal. The proposed findings, how to document [ Indiscernible ] and deadline. Second, this new process will be more expedition with full document disclosure and quick answers to legal questions. Third, it promotes transparency of publication of nonconfidential documents related to any fighting in the conclusion of the audit, and ensures consistencies. Finally, this new process maintains those same question resolution program for questions arising for analysis while terminating it for audit, because committees cannot have it meaningful challenge to legal theories put forth in the audit process. I would be remiss if I did not mention that the work to complement this process, we welcome feedback from the committee going through the process, as well as the product about how it is or is not working. Until now, the audit process has been long, inefficient, and shrouded in secrecy. Commissioning committees, have expended it great deal of resources to complete audits while often losing activity to the five-year statute limitations. The new process established here will expedite audit, providing a meaningful significant [ Indiscernible ], and hopefully not sour people in the process of exercising their right to participant in politics. With that Madam chair, but asked for unanimous consent for my comments. Colleagues? Okay. Further, no questions to the policy? Thanks, Madam chair. Very briefly, I agree with everything you said and everything Commissioner Traynor said, and thank you both for all the work that went into this process, I'm very excited to support it. I just want to make a note, on a broader level that, this is a very big deal. This is one of a number of very big important policy accomplishments, and bipartisan agreements the commissioners reached over the last six months, eight months, and I think it is a sign of a new trend in the commission, and I think the hits will keep on coming, so I'm looking forward to that and I think for those who are commission watchers, it's another feather in our cap, another data point to show that we can get a lot of very complex things done working together. No one is perfectly happy with, but at least for five or six commissions are happy to support. You very much. For all the work that went into this. Commissioner Weintraub . Thank you, Madam chair. Thank you to everyone who worked very hard on all of these documents. There are a lot of moving parts and they're all kinda complicated. The commission has been saddled with -- Directive 74 way too long. I've never been a fan. I was [ Indiscernible ] therefore [ Indiscernible - muffled ] I actually have been pleased over the last year how frequently commissioners complement the staff having gone through it autocommit was not fun. We frequently [ Indiscernible - muffled ] a very positive and collaborative effort. I know nobody like Sonata, but that's always been something of take comfort in [ Indiscernible - muffled ] the purpose of the audit program is to ensure that the benchmark could go on. It's kind of like a fire line. [ Indiscernible - muffled ] if your fire alarm is beeping, that could mean you just need a new battery. There's not a lot of problems going on, or you've got a five alarm fire and you got to get out of the house and called the fire department, pronto. So with that we have to go beyond just the smoke [ Indiscernible ] clean audit reports at the end of the process it's really important that we do have a solid audit program and I was an early advocate of the hearing, and I'm glad we had that hearing [ Indiscernible ] the comments of been very subsequent to and always we do go through a process like this, -- That is really could be so helpful. My concern all along, is that I want to make sure that the process we are streamlining the process. Of this committees. One last-minute change in particular it doesn't sound like much, but the footnote, every committees different [ Indiscernible ] DEFCON 2 committees, different kinds of documents and is not an extensive list. Something that was really helpful and actually getting the documents which the only way we can really get that accomplished. There are a bunch of new times and limits that are in these documents, budget deadlines, moving deadlines, was a truism, worked up to the last minute, so we would have to have the last five minutes to allow those deadlines in order to get the project done on a timely basis. This time are they appropriate and workable? I'm not sure about that. I don't know [ Indiscernible ] we can learn. Learn by doing. I think that the commission can made a whites decision with what may not be obvious to a group of people that are obvious, we have a shared commitment -- We have the same set of rules so every committee [ Indiscernible ] we were under that time, we were going to try and get into the cycle and we wouldn't get any time for staff to train themselves on the community, let the community do it. So it's not that we need any extra few years to get ready and start reading it, we will put it in to popular vote. Having made that whites decision to move forward forward we need a little bit more time. We got public input earlier in the process. But we put only what was done on the final records in the butt public document. I appreciate the last-minute changes, there were constructive, again, it made it harder for everybody else to really get into the intricacies and decide whether they wanted to come it's constructive to say we did get one comment which I appreciate, but his concern about the,, as well as make sure whatever changes we made continue to meet the requirements. So given that we are not under time constraints for adopting this document, I think it would help us to ensure that we have the public there chance to read through this if they wanted to figure out if they are work wanting to make improvements or changes to it. I formal public comment period. We have a document in which I come up put out a [ Indiscernible ] that we will send with comments, so -- I propose that we open the 30 day comment period at the appropriate time. I'll be happy to make that motion. I do have one of the suggestion. That is to follow on the instructed steps every aspect the audit process. I appreciate this point in public. With got to be patient, because we have to go through a cycle and see how it works. But we think it would be a good change that is to the system, for the rest of the document client will also transparency were we made a commitment to the public that six months after the end of the first cycle, that it would take effect, and again at the end of every cycle, how are we doing? How are we doing on meeting the goals, that we set out for ourselves, so I think that would be a balance within the constraints of the efficiencies, orderly development of the law transfer sissy and compliance. And to update the public and let them know how we are doing. In part were inspired by the comment [ Indiscernible ] and show the we are going to continually monitor them. We do have an effective program, and ensure its function. Okay fine. The other part was speaking about is the transparency and disclosure mission. Have a couple of motions, will see have a go. Will be fine. Again, I want to thank everybody. Treatment Thank you manager, I want to thank Madam chair and Commissioner trainer for the work on this. It's not easy to do something has been in effect for a number of years. It's been a challenge. Plenty of success has come out of the record with the direct effort of the staff. I take this opportunity, to tell you thank you for the work. I want to stake the staff, my staff has been mentioned, the EA's, but I think Commissioner Trainor it got down to the last minute you engaged me and added that article. I think it helps to remove all the stuff and output concerns that we've heard from the comments to know that that footnote does relieve some of the specific concerns that were addressed. I think it gives staff for comfort that they can proceed with the documents they need to do their job accordingly. Because we all know the purpose of God is to make sure that there is compliance with the act. I said thank you for that. The appropriate time, there's a motion, but have discussion I would like to have before we get to that motion, but thank you for your hard work. Thank you Chairwoman Broussard . The commission's audit program is very so often dealt with. But I want to take the time to think the chair and Commissioner for their leadership and dedication. You know, this is another success story. I think it demonstrates [ Indiscernible ] the informed observers will recognize a bipartisan and move beyond deadlock and incrimination and embrace difficult challenges. I see today's part of a collaborative pattern, one that began when Chairwoman Broussard became on. Even with the framing, these are important on their own merits, and highlight one that I dig is true. I started my career as an attorney on internal investigations, and it involves what is up aside with auditors. The purpose of an audit is to determine whether an organization is meeting standards. For instance, in the case of standard acceptable accounting principles. The auditors are trained in the standards. They are expert working with an organization's books and records to determine whether they comply with these public records. And they generally set the rules. In many ways, the commission's audits are like this. Our auditors are trained with election standards, they are expert in developing better standards. The difference though, I've heard this alluded to a few times, the purpose here is the difference from the standard audit is the conduct it is a standard in which the audit against is conducted. Our auditors are sometime asked to audit against the standard. There may not be universal agreement. Sometimes our audits assert in error even though the underlying legal rationale, is not supported by the majority. Sometimes a standard it's articulated in a particular way may enjoy no support from the group. This is and has been unfair to our auditors, and both parties of long dessert to have a division to clearly articulate the standard auditors are asked to apply. This takes a very substantial step to creating a framework early in the process for the commission to consider and either resolve or acknowledge lack of consensus on these items. This will allow our auditors to do the work with greater confidence and those being audited to be displayed in our process. These changes strike a blow for due process, transparency, and grateful. I feel privileged to be on the commission at a time that work to [ Indiscernible ]. With that we will open. We are ready for motions. Commissioner Weintraub . Thank you, Madam chair. I move that the commission open 30 days one more comment. So that that document can be reviewed. Any questions or comments? I'm not going to join the motion. I've think that you and Commissioner Trainor went well above and beyond your requirements of the law, frankly, I think the reaction from the regulatory group was pretty substantial, loud and clear. These are processes that are entrusted to us in our discretion. I am unmoved by general concerns that despite months of comment., A hearing, and the expert views of most practitioners in this area that we are insufficient. I'll add one comment on that, as well. We did have robust comments what we were discussing it, initially, but we put the notice out, we received, it's pretty much immediately. That's usually what happens when we put anything out for advisory opinion, or something like this. These documents have been out for a week. We worked very hard to get them in so we can post it online for the public to see. And the only comment we received was the last day or this morning. I'm not interested in many of the public that often comment on them. I take that as many there is no reason for further comment.. I think people worked very hard, and there is a point where communicable was stopped. And we accept them. And I'm very much looking forward to voting here, and to working with staff. That said, all in favor? PACMS . No. Yes please. Commission Madam chair, what I said earlier, in the document I'm talking about is I'm cognizant of the language that has outlived its usefulness. And that is the only reason why I think we would discipline ourselves with the process. [ Indiscernible ] I moved to amend meeting document 23-10-letter the 1. [ Indiscernible ] strike the appropriate balance among physician sees [ Indiscernible - muffled ] . I am open to discussion of this one, because I do see that there is a particular value for us to do our own kind of internal audit of this audit process. But, while I support the motion, I would like for us to talk about and flush out exactly how we could do this. And conceptualize how we could do this. I have a concern where can have staff serving a program, and throw this in. I'm kind of wondering whether it's better served as part of our reports process, where we do orderly reports, so consider looking at this is a compliance position. We at least look at the initial onset for what we for Jessica's I'd like to get out there. I know we are getting this today. It puts us all in a discomfort. I enjoyed that. I think what are the responsibilities we have for doing something is to benefit this audit position is to all agree that we are doing it right. I'd like to keep it open for discussion. I know that it is tied to the actual document. There is a possibility of considering removing it and maybe putting it on another agenda. I'm not sure how the appropriate way to handle it, I'm asking. My comments, take accountability for frequency is always a good thing. But I have just received this in the last hour to come and I'm not going to put additional burden, reporting burden on our staff until I actually look at it and understand it and flush out how it is that we make determinations of how we benchmark. To Mac while I'm absently open to this, and now I don't think there's a need to commit into the directive what we are moving out today, I actually don't think it's appropriate to put it in today. Either way, but I would actually be open to this discussion of quarterly reports, is a fantastic idea, as usual, and to see how we can get this to make sure we're finding out what is order for the agency, and what isn't. I saw this probably a half hour before this meeting. So, I'm happy to talk about this. I don't even know what's on the meeting agenda, but I am happy to discuss it. A question like this should go through the full process. Chairwoman Broussard . I agree with what Commissioner Dickerson said, and I have some concerns as Chairwoman Broussard, the who, the what, the where, why, don't thickets flushed out in this motion . I think the period of six months that follows the 2023 cycle audits, could reach into the year 20 30. I don't think that current set of six commissions will be here until 2030, I think the commission of 2030 can decide what reports they want us to get. So, I'm not going to be able to speak to this today. Commissioner Weintraub. [ Indiscernible ] in terms about my suggestion about quarterly reports, ticketed excellent addition to the quarterly port I would like to pursue is a report to the public. Quarterly port is for us, but for the commissioners, the public also deserves to know and that's in regards -- I know it's last minute. It didn't occur to me this morning. I was trying to think of those we could ensure that we get the vote. But, I am still support the idea. And we're still doing audits. And 130 [ Indiscernible ] all in favor? I'll post -- [ Indiscernible ] Commissioner Trainor. I would move the the commission approve agenda document number 23-10-B 1. In a discussion on the motion? Thank you, Madam chair. [ Indiscernible - muffled ] All those in favor? Chairwoman Broussard. Passes. A move that the commission approve agenda document 23-10-C. Discussion and motion. Just discussion. I understand why we are doing this for the committees that are subject to new procedures. [ Indiscernible ] but there are the committees -- [ Indiscernible - muffled ] subcommittee to accept public fund have the right to agree challenges. 9038 .12 provides the candidate and his or her own committee in writing. [ Indiscernible - muffled ] butters problem here is that we get so many different reports it's hard to know what's what. The committee cannot transmit additional documentation without permission. And, materials can be split by councils prior it requires the commission to consider legal challenges before voting, before voting on it issue and it reproving audit report. [ Indiscernible ] It's not the case that committees who receive public funds or removing opportunities to consider public question. It is [ Indiscernible ] About. All in favor? Aye. All oppose? The motion passes 5-0. I move that the commission approve agenda document number 23-10-D. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Madam chair, I would move that the commission moved to approve agenda item 23-10-D. All in favor? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all, it's quite the process. All right. Moving on. We have -- I believe we are going to go to the advisory opinion. Sorry, I'm a little despite belated, and we have -- My stream is out, so we have representation from counsel? One moment. So we have a peer the draft advisory 20 23-03. And the Colorado Republican State Central committee and we have Christopher Murray on the behalf, and Lindsay Byrd will be presenting. Ms. Bird, welcome. Go ahead, when you are ready. Thank you. And good afternoon agenda document 23 09 a is a draft for Scott to. This Colorado State Central committee asked for funds received by legal funds established a challenge to state law that created a semiopen primary system would be contributions and expenditures under the act, and whether disbursements from the fund would be federal election activity, or activity conducted internationally with the federal election. The draft further concludes that the proposed legal fund would not be engaged in federal election activity, or otherwise engaged in activity with federal elections. The commission received no comments on the request and one comment on the draft. Thank you, and we are available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, counsel. Colleagues, in a discussion of the motion? Chairwoman Broussard. Thank you, Madam chair. We did receive a,, but I think it was removed in footnote 22. It was exactly what was in the comment were received. We didn't have any discussion or anything in regard to that at the appropriate time I will be make final consent to everyone that I will be making a motion to remove the language in the footnote. I think the time it sums up my concern with this. It becomes hypothetical when we are not exactly opining to the requester on what exactly we would be considering. It's conditional, you know, we are giving them to options, if you don't like a, pick be. That's not what this is. Someone said they may agree with me outside, but I was right already. So, thank you for that. And at their personal time I'll make a motion, but I would be interested in colleagues being engaged with this. I would. I appreciate the invitation. I see this as part of the request. The requester explicitly noted these requests be built into the process, so there's an intentional decision. So then the four questions being asked of us, I find it odd that we wouldn't recognize that as part of the question being asked of us. And just be silent on material aspect of the AO itself, sorry, the request itself. I also don't see it as contingent, really, because what I said, we acknowledge he said this to us, but it wasn't material to our determinations. I'd rather explain clearly what we did and not rely on the situation get it approved. That's a litigator talking. You pull the record, you've silenced the partner, we have no idea what the commission was thinking at the time. There's no ambiguity. And I think the short footnote with respect to my friends on the outside who commented, actually strengthens the case and makes a connection between the request of the AO less ambiguous. So would not the [ Indiscernible ] reach out to the questioner to see if we are directly addressing with their sticking? It seems me that change should've happened at the point that we got this in. I think that's a perfectly reasonable path to take. I guess I think of it is that's communicative you can I have a as applied challenge to your work. Cost should be used to protect are inhibited, and yeah in your complaint you can list out a whole jot and tittle of what's going on -- I'm sorry I got that wrong, I'm little sleep deprived. You know, all of the things that may make out your claim, but what you're really saying is the facts in this course of conduct, I think are legally protected. And I think that's pretty much what happens at advisory opinion, it provides you, the all the request of the all were faxed the situation, and we apply on whether of those facts are a violation of the act. So, I take the point that you may or may not have fax in the record that are material, but I don't see the harm in recognizing which ones were were not material to our decision. I'm not sure we need to force counsel to clarify what they think material facts are, because presumably in sending the request, they thought of this package was universally opinion advice. I'm not sure. I think we have a requester with us. I'd like, if you would, would just like to hear from you as regard to the proposed answer to the letter a literal, and anything we may have missed or didn't address, or things that are overly addressed? Thank you Commissioner Trainor, on behalf of the Colorado Republican committee on the requester here. I appreciate the chance to get with you. As a person who represent entities that are subject to audit. I'm glad to see this adopted today. I don't think it would be a surprise Commissioner Trainor, we like draft A literal. When it comes to 22, to address it directly, from our point of view, we could take it or leave it. We will have a independent board govern this. And the reason for that is simply to insulate the leadership of the state party from having to make day-to-day decisions on this. It is something that we want, whether it's necessary to the conclusion of the AO, or not. So I happen to agree with what footnote 22 says, I think the campaign legal Center has it wrong in the comic, but, if it comes out that doesn't create problems for us at all, as to the rest of the opinion, no, we think we have exactly what we need in order to go forward. We think as the AO lays out, it is six consistent with past AO's, and kind of similar circumstances. So counsel is telling me that we don't have to answer. For me I take great comfort in the fact that he said it. This goes a long way in deciding to support this. I'm quite happy to know that we will vote on that, it's okay even though you told me that I'm wrong. I think you are right Chairwoman Broussard. If United circulated that, I would've done it. You beat me to the punch. In addition to thinking you're right on the law, I also by a long-standing practice think we should take [ Indiscernible ] if somebody says I'm to set up my operation, that's what we rely on. If somebody else wants come in and ask a different question, well, I want to edit three of those things, this is an rulemaking. We said we can have a independent board, that may be in Porton to some people but not to others but I'm looking for the opportunity to improve the transaction. All right. Any further discussion, otherwise motions? Okay. Sure. All right. [ Laughter ] Thank you Madam chair, [ Indiscernible ] 23-09A [ Indiscernible ] All in favor? Aye . Motion passes unanimously. 242 today. I hope you know I was kidding, didn't take any offense by it. Thank you very much, sir. I, final item on the agenda is the audit division recommendation memorandum on keynote for America first. Madam chair. Mr. Smith. The floor is yours when you are ready. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Before you is the audit division recommendation memorandum for Latinos for America first. Finding one in the statement of financial activity, fund into increased activity, and finding three, disclosure of occupation and or name of employer. We are available to answer any questions. Thank you. Any discussion? Colleague, any motions? Thank you, Madam chair. With respect to the audit division recommendation memorandum on Latinos for America first letter 21 a dashed well. I approved the recommendation per All in favor. Motion fails 3-3. Commissioners Commissioner Weintraub Commissioner Trainor, and with respect to audit division recommendation, I moved to Provo subject to the following, one in the autumn division recommendation memorandum reduce the amount in finder disclosure of occupation, to 129 contributions to individuals totaling $39,340, and make any technical and informing changes to the audit report. And to remove from finding one, the statement of financial activity in the forthcoming performs final audit report language that would put LFA have provided no specific information to provide the individuals not reported. Commissioner Trainor motion? I thought it was can be done a little differently. There's a portion of this I can support, but I'm not able to support the portion in regard to the disclosure of occupation. And again, my own notes, is that I probably say an immediate motion to set four. I am comfortable with approving number three. My apologies, vice chair which be willing to call that and split it for me? Let me withdraw that, I guess if I can do this and split this into two motions. So let me do it this way. With respect to the audit division recommendation for Latinos for America first, I move -- I'll do the occupation one first. I move the ADR in reduce the amount in violation finding three disclosure of occupation and/or name of employer to 129 contributions from individuals totaling $39,340 and making any technical changes in forthcoming proposed final audit report. Any discussion? All in favor. So the motion passes 5-0 with Commissioner Broussard abstaining. I support it, but having to have it disappear altogether, I'm going to make a finding on hundred 29 contributions and we can all agree on. Let me make the second part then. With respect to elections, Latins for America first, I moved to subject to removing from finding one statement of financial activity language that provided no explicit information wise $76,622 were not reported and in its place insert the committee's contention that the errors were unintentional, and due to the treasurer's lack of experience. All in favor? Motion passes unanimously. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. With that, are there any management or administrative matters. Ettinger, there are no such matters. That concludes the open meeting. Thank you.