This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on December 14, 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.


[captions began about five minutes into the meeting]

It would do the deduction before designating to the candidates. The pack with Elizabeth after an individual completes their [ Inaudible ], they would make in your my contribution. 
 The request asks a number of questions of treatment of contributions of the pack and committees, and whether the packs cause  for producing expenditures would constitute additional expenditures. 
 Draft a and B both conclude that the costs the PSA composes us to earmark contributions would be contributions to the PAC, and at the designated candidate. And the payment for the corrected institutions, do not constitute contributions from the pack earmark. It's a different conclusion about whether the pack would have to report costs by producing and disturbing costs. Draft day, includes that either the market dies or the cost would constitute independent expenditures. While draft the recognized both, and expended costs, we received one comment. 
 And one comment on the draft. 
 Thank you college Skamania question? 
 Thank you, Madam chair. Thank you for the presentation come all the work on the drafts. Question for counsel, the requester, you do not submit any written comments about the two drafts, as counsel just explained there. There are diverging outcomes with respect to the solicitation cause commended the production and distribution, and merchandising and whether those are reportable expenditures? I'm understanding your views on those two issues, and whether one draft is correct over the other, or what your views are with those issues. 
 Good morning. Thank you fellow commissioners. 
 I have my own personal views on which draft I believe Jesus or right outcome and has read analysis. But I'm not here to represent my own personal views on this matter. So, for my clients purposes, they are able to operate under either draft, and they are also able to operate under both drafts essentially if the commission were to lock on the issues on question three and four regarding recognize costs and proposed extension costs. 
 Our client is grateful for the guidance, given by both the drafts. We think the commissioners and the staff for questions. Happy to answer any other questions. 
 Any further discussion? 
 Okay. Let's move on to motions. 
 Madam Broussard, please. 
 I move for draft be. 
 I move approval with agenda document 23-28-be draft be. 
 Any discussion of the motion before we actually boat? I am going to be X staining abstaining -- I don't agree with all the analysis command being distracted is going to get four votes, I'm not in trouble everyone with making those changes for a draft that I'm not going to vote for. 
 I will stick with abstaining here. Colleagues. 
 Madam chair why we are discussing the motion in light of your comment that I hope you will put those views in writing for your colleagues and the regulating committee? 
 All in favor? I checked. 
 Them nation motion fails to the three. 
 Vice chair, please. 
 Thanks Madam chair, and thanks Mr. wing for your input, as well. With respect to 23-28 draft day? 
 Any discussion? Elevator? 
 The motion fails 323. Commissioner Brassard, we are opposed and Wyckoff. 
 If I could ask a Catholic question, what I propose to do in light of the votes we just did, is to direct the compromise draft that answers questions on which those two drafts agree, and the commission is is unable to answer questions three and four. Do you have any comments on the proposal before I make it, but that would is what I would intend to do. 
 Yeah, that would be sufficient guidance for my client. Thank you. 
 Madam chair, in that case, with respect to the draft advisory and 2023-08, I instruct the office of General Counsel to draft a third draft response to the advisory opinion consistent with the overlapping answers in draft ANB for Attali boat to the commission. 
 Any discussion? 
 [ Inaudible - background noise ]  Sahr. Could I ask for further instructions for questions five and six? With respect to questions five and six, I believe the answers between the two drafts published were the same insofar as they said, the variation didn't matter. I think that could be included in the compromise draft see, I guess to the extent that it also is in the comment on the merits of questions three and four which is also part of the conclusion that the difference didn't change the legal outcome. 
 Thank you. Any discussion? 
 Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. 
 And now we are on to our regulations. 
 [ Silence ] 
  On our agenda is REG 2021-01 (Candidate Salaries) - Draft Final Rules and Explanation and Justification . 
 Thank you. Madam chair, good morning, commissioners. This is a draft final rules explanation and justification on candidate salaries. The draft revises regulations concerning the use of campaign funds by candidates principal campaign committee to pay compensation to the candidate. The Commissioner would be issuing these final rules in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by former candidate for the United States House of Representatives. Given the 30 day congressional review. For final rules of the commission, the effective date would be March 1st of 2024. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. 
 And thank you for all of your incredible work on this. This draft game, we have been there, and I know I'm certainly grateful for everything you've done here to help us get across the finish line. 
 Colleagues, discussion? 
 Madam chair, I saw my colleagues I shift in my direction. I'd also like to thank the house General Counsel, for the very long road, and without getting too into the weeds in public in my recognize there was a lot of back-and-forth and not always at convenient hours. I'm personally very grateful. I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work of Commissioner Broussard and her staff. This is her accomplishment. It reflects deep engagement with all of our offices, and I'll just say all of our offices so I suspect especially mine, and advancing a bipartisan compromise. This regulation is not to my mind perfect. But it is an enormous improvement of the status quo. There been suggestion, the candidates paying themselves salaries for campaign funds necessarily violate the laws of personal use. That salaries been spent directly on rent gas come a which are banned by the statute. This is a nontrivial point, but we do not write out a blank slate. In my judgment, we do more good integrate monthly minimums here then we would on deadlocking on it already settled point of law. 
 With that said, a few points, most poorly, the commission today acknowledges salaries are lawful. This recommendation is not an invitation to pay candidates as candidates. Or, for being a candidate, nor does up with the commission and the strange place of setting the market price for candidate services, whatever those might be? We declined without video the candidates are mere employees of their campaign committees. They may be hired, paid, fired, replaced at will. The candidates political committee is an anticorruption device that separates campaign funds and determines rivalry. It's determined by the candidate, not the committee. This has three important things that align it with the stated goal of allowing individuals modest income while campaigning for office. First starting with drawing a salary. It's that easy state filing deadlines which are late in the process very widely across the states, we should go to universal. They may draw salary after dog a statement of candidacy. This eliminates the arbitrary treatment of candidates based on widely diverted state laws, and incentivizes candidates to file candidacy statements that have [ Inaudible ] for many years.  This is the path of cap for concentration. This reflects the awesome thing is fact that the common representatives are still employed as members of Congress. 
 Other candidates may also be paid welcome painting but the revised reflects the fact that those who choose to campaign full-time are not similarly situated with people with ongoing responsibilities as officeholders. Third, most fundamentally, it clarifies that any outside income. The good from the maximum salary candidate may receive. Again, this regulation specifically target related replacing income, it's not an opportunity to supplement existing income. Because I believe those three changes in particular, there's more, but those of the big ones for me, your significant improvement on the existing regulation. I'm happy to support them. Again, Commissioner Brassard was the animated force behind the synthesis ruling to her accomplishment. I think the General Counsel, but I think we all benefited from the engagement and testimony, and I went to the public for their engagement. Several observers I suspect will send echoes of the recommendations of the commentary in this final draft. That is how this process is supposed to work. I think to get my colleagues and to the public about look forward to supporting the draft. 
 Thank you, Madam chair. I would also like to add my sincere thanks to Commissioner described -- Dickerson, and note that my vote today comes down to disagreement about the law. My opposition is not unnecessary restriction of bike view of what candidates should be able to pay themselves in salary from the fund given to their cafe, although I do have concerns about that as a policy matter. My vote is an expression of my opinion that the statute be administered, does not create faith as a path as a rule. Congressman Smith testified, it is wrong -- It was the wrong turn the commission took many years ago. And I just don't see a sufficiently compelling reason to double down on that error. This new rule does not solve the fundamental policy that Congress did pass to allow candidates to draw salary from campaign funds. 52 USC 30114 becomes very clear that a contribution or donation to a principal campaign committee shall not be converted, by any person to personal use. The statute continues on to list specific prohibited expenses, including home mortgage, rent, clothing purchases and non-campaign related expenses or any household food items. But under the candidate salary regime, while a candidate maybe not withdraw $2000 from their camping and bank account to make a mortgage payment, they could pay themselves $2000 from their campus fun and use that money to make the same mortgage payment. How the former has prorated personal use and the letters not, boggles my mind. It is not clear to me what the commission has extended a candidate salary allowance only to congressional and not to other candidates. I appreciate the work done, because all too often, our worlds are complex and difficult to comply with. I cannot support this role. I'm not unsympathetic to the demands of running for elected office, and I support the candidate recruitment and training efforts undertaken by party committees and nonprofits across the country, and I hope that those efforts can address some of the concerns animated by these reports. 
 I sincerely appreciate all the people who took time to testify before the commission, and file written comments. But at the end of the day, my job is to administer the statute, within the bounds of the Constitution. And I am unpersuaded that this rule would be in according with that. 
 Thank you, Madam chair. 
 I'd like to thank my colleagues. Both colleagues that if spoken today, I appreciate the words you said not only graduating the staff and myself, but speaking and sharing your views on where we might be diverging. I think that that is where real understanding for everyone else lies. We understand the amount of work that is taken first get here today. 
 I'm going to close with thanking the staff,  the main person to thank his [ Inaudible ], and I will close with you. But,  today I'm pleased that the commission is looking at new regulations whether candidates can use campaign funds for their compensation. This started in 2021 with a petition for rulemaking, and a current member of the Georgia state Senate. I want to thank Senator Enron for efforts to bring about these changes. The changes in the final rule will help ordinary working class Americans represent the communities by running for office. In particular, the new regulations will now allow candidate to begin to draw compensation for their campaigns starting on the day that they file. This new provision reflects the realities of running for federal office which often involves full, time campaigning, beginning more than a year before the election. Candidates will also be able to draw compensation for 28 days after the candidacy to allow for a period of winding down. Finally, under the new regulations, the compensation cap will now be based on a candidates averaged earn income over a longer look back period, rather than the single year prior to the candidacy. This will allow more people to draw compensation, including people who may have had gaps in employment due to illness, economic downturn, caregiving responsibilities, or schooling. 
 I'd like to thank you again, my colleague from the commission and Associates staff who work on this rulemaking. So I think Mr. Joe [ Inaudible ],  Joseph Wenzinger, there were a lot of  late hours, and they were extremely patient. I thank you for that. Cheryl Hemsley, who is on screen, thank you very much, Cheryl,  Amy Rothstein, the team lead,  and we will soon recognize how important this is to the American people. Thank you. 
 Thank you, Madam chair. 
 I want to add my thanks to the excellent staff who did their usual excellent work for the American people and for the commission. I want to particularly thank Commissioner Broussard and her staff, for their into the taggable efforts for going across the finish line. I should her passion for this project, and I am grateful that it looks like we are actually going to pass this rule. I think that, -- In some ways this is a continuation of the project that the commission has been engaged in for many years with series of areas of dressing childcare, that are with the commission, has recognized the difficulties of running for office for a wide variety of people. And I think the American people are better served by a Congress that looks more like the American people, not just comprised of millionaires who can afford to take two years off without pay, and run for office. 
 Regular people running for office, will bring the concerns of regular people to the Congress. And I think make for better government. So, I am very excited that we are at this point where we can vote for this today, and particularly thank my colleague Commissioner Broussard for helping us reach this excellent moment. 
 Thank you. 
 Madam chair, I think you are about to say motion, so I'm not sure. Commissioner Weintraub reminded me come I was remiss, but thank you for mentioning I might mess up your last name, I apologize. But thank you. There were a lot of staff people in everyone's office, but I think all of them, I wanted to thank Esther because she's the brain trust, so she deserves to be called out personally. If I may Madam chair make the motion. 
 REG 2021-01 (Candidate Salaries) - Draft Final Rules and Explanation and Justification. I'm of approval. 
  In a discussion? 
 I forgot to say one thing. 
 The hearing that Commissioner Bussard organize was one of the most compelling hearings of sin, and as a Commissioner I want to thank Mrs. Lum for bringing the petition, but for all the witnesses, several traveled at their own expense to come and tell us their personal stories, and I think they were incredibly good for us. And it really added and enriched the public record. 
 Any further discussion of that mushing? All in favor? 
 The motion passes 521 with Commissioner Broussard, Weintraub, Dickerson, vice chair and myself favor, and Commissioner Trainor opposes. 
 Next up we have another regulation. At the Federal election commission. 
 Is a very big day for our staff. 
 We are now on REG 2013-01 (Technological Modernization) - Draft Final Rules and Explanation and Justification , technological modernization. 
 A draft final ruled and justification for technological modernization. These final rules Madill knives regulations to draft electronic communication and transactions and facilitate housing record-keeping, reporting and redesignation by political committees. They eliminate references to outmoded technologies. Given the 30 day congressional review., This is final ruled by the commission as the effective rule would be March 28th, 2024. Any questions? 
 Yes, Commissioner Broussard. 
 Thank you manager, will not have extended remarks under this one, but this one was another project where when you mention 2013, there was a long time coming. This rule would help modernize a lot of things that become obvious in the way that we conduct as is, now. 
 This is a continuation of the Broussard and Dickeson team that is worked together to accomplish this. It can be a challenging working relationship, but I enjoy the path they are. 
 I think my colleague for many late discussions, and digging into the realm of technology that I admit that I very limited expertise, not broadly studied, Internet I.T., than I've ever done in my entire life, and that is why I went to law school, so I wouldn't have to do those things. But this is where this helps you learn new things. It's been a pleasure working with you Commissioner Dickerson, as always, and I'm glad we have been able to shake this into something that has been needed and this agency for a while. I like to tell everyone, take notes. We are getting it done. It doesn't always happen when we wanted. But, this is an effort to show that this commission is a strong working body, and we are accomplishing this task. So, thank you very much. 
 In contrast, Commissioner Broussard, I will forgo comments on data processing. Thank you, Madam chair. Once again the commission is taking up a rulemaking. Once again I would think Commissioner Broussard and being a strong partner in redirecting my thoughts. [ Inaudible - muffled ]  I want to highlight one portion. The definition of public communication and Internet public communication. These terms -- I want to emphasize the commission's interpretation that we are including within both definitions the circumstance for advertising platforms itself directly to engage expand, or boost viewership of advocacy. 
 The commission is not in many instances, where an individual can be advertising platforms itself, it's created [ Inaudible - muffled ]  the definition competence instances about what contents to share with our audience. I learned for the record, they remain free to advocate for candidates of their choice. 
 Similarly, the definition including staffing and other input cause, used to create post-electoral messages, is only payments to advertising costs themselves. 
 Regulation also provides lung necessary up dates for range of technical questions. I encourage professionals to consult those chains. I -- This is very sincere, that these changes will promote efficiency for the commission for our already overworked staff. Like many important things this regulation is technical. I'm especially grateful for the many comments we received over the decades since this work was proposed, and the work of the Council going through all the minutia of line by line edits of this. I appreciate the public's patience with us as years comes down to today's resolution. 
 Any questions? 
 Thanks, Madam chair. I want to echo a lot of the comments that Commissioner Dickinson made about this rulemaking. I genuinely believe maybe one of the most important rule makings the commission is done in many number of years. Not to speak badly about the other rules, but really to emphasize how critical this one is. 
 While all the technological dates I think of a very important, and maybe overdue, the most critical part of this rulemaking as the commissioners of highlighted other changes to the definition of public communication come and Internet public communication, but maybe more important what's not been changed. The 2006 rulemaking establishing is the Internet exemption, and one of the most critical protections for free speech on the Internet in modern American law. 
 Rule exempt from regulation, post and communications placed on the Internet for free, and have limited the application of the commission's various rules and limitations, only to paid advertising. 
 At the same time, in the last 17 years, since the Internet exemption was first put out, debates have ensued. How or to what extent does the Internet exemption exempt also the input cause of those communications? How does it apply to nonprofit organizations? What types of various political communications on the Internet fall outside of his protection? I am pleased at this rulemaking, we are voting on today answers many of those questions and laces those debates directs. This makes him points very clearly. And not to be repetitive at some things Commissioner Dickerson said, staffing, design cost for making freaky medications are not regulated. They are not public communications. They are contributions, they expenditures, and their independent expenditures,.. The commission is not regulating public communications, the content created by influencers, other Internet content creators that generate their own clinical messages and share the political messages of others and their audiences in the they are paid to do so. They aren't subject to regulations that govern traditional advertising. That leads to the third and final point, which is the regulation of political McGrady negations on the Internet is limited to traditional paid advertising. It's payments to a platform. It disseminates or increases the viewership of communication on the platform. That is the rule from the Internet rulemaking last year been clarified today. I have been a longtime advocate for Internet free speech, long before I got to the commission, and please were taking this step today to reaffirm the Internet exemption but to further clarify. The Internet's special ability to act as a bastion of free speech is global and has grown since 2006 as we come up with more newer ways to express ourselves. I'm proud of the committee itself that once again took a hands-on approach to the Internet and it's important tool is free speech. 
 Thank you, Madam chair. 
 Any further? 
 Thank you, Madam chair. 
 I started this rulemaking in 2013, thinking it was good to be noncontroversial and therefore easy to do. And that was plainly not a well-founded assumption on my part. There were many years when frankly, previous commissioners did not want to deal with this document because much of it is long and tedious. I very much appreciate my colleagues [ Laughter ]  today that were willing to put in the effort. It was a lot of effort to sweat details, and to help us to update our regulations. Really, you know, if you go into the weeds on this, you'll see some stuff that plainly very desperately needed to be updated. And I think it was important to get the word promoted into the regulation. I was disappointed when that didn't happen last year. And, given the way advertising works on the Internet, did not encompass that type of esteem payment to boost the medication on the Internet. I think it was a serious lack in our regulation. So because it does a lot of really good youthful things I'm going to vote for this today. I'm going to have to respectively differ with my colleagues on an issue that are not with us today and that is payments, well payments to social media influencers to spread politico commentary out there. 
 I want to be clear that nobody is suggesting that they shouldn't be able to speak their messages to their audiences, they absolutely should. And of course, given their large audience, political actors want to take advantage of that, they want to be able to work with those influences to help get their messages across. There's no problem with any of that. The problem that I see is where creating a gaping loophole in our relaxants when it comes to transparency. And the core mission of this agency is to disclose funding and politics. Say what you want, but if somebody's paying you to put on their political message, and the American public deserves to know. The Supreme Court has held, that political transparency gives people equal weight to deliver messages. 
 Maybe this fans wouldn't care if they knew they were being paid to promote messages that they are voting for. Maybe they would, but I think they are entitled to know. And when the commission in 2006, looked at the Internet and exempted for example, bloggers, and they didn't have any special indication to tell people they were being paid. We were in a different world. Those bloggers didn't have the audience that social media influence has today, the content creators, is a billion-dollar industry, this is in random people sitting there bedroom pecking away at their keyboards, these are serious business people who are very savvy, and are making a lot of money from their content creation and from spreading their messages on the Internet. 
 Money, is in fact, what we are interested in. Not stopping anybody from speaking, just making sure that the monies disclosed. 
 It is no longer the case that we have to worry that these are a bunch of unsophisticated actors, that are to be caught up in the net of regulations that they would have no way of understanding and making exception to. Content creators are subject to regulation now by regulatory bodies, and PC, and they must put disclaimers on when they promote a brand of toothpaste or dietary supplement, or any other product. I think we would've been well advised to include the same kind of requirement or disclaimer. 
 Sadly, we did not have the votes to do that. I regret that. But, as I said, there's a lot of useful stuff in this regulation nonetheless including [ Inaudible ], so with some regret, I'm still going to support this revelation, and I am very happy that after all these years, it's finally going to get done . 
 Any further questions? 
 Motion? 
 This will be a joint motion [ Inaudible - muffled ]  I'd like to move the adoption and regulation REG 2013-01 (Technological Modernization) - Draft Final Rules and Explanation and Justification,  with the adoption of agenda document 2013-01. 
 All in favor. Aye. 
 The motion passes unanimously. And thank you to the Broussard Dixon team. 
 [ Inaudible - muffled ] 
  I think you guys for yet again, your ability to navigate these past for rulemaking, is truly incredible. [ Inaudible - muffled ] 
  Nextep, will be talking about our draft legislative recommendations -- And viewers can look on the website for our draft. [ Inaudible - muffled ]  Mr. Pugh. 
 Commissioners before you today for your approval 17 draft recommendations for 2023 listed in 23-27-a. We have one amendment to document. Congress has passed legislation extending the [ Inaudible ] program  for 10 years until 20 33, and the bill is at the White House waiting for the President's approval. The commission is a group that the legislative recommendation related to the expiration should not be repeated this year. That recommendation should be deleted from the document. 
 Also note, one of our guests today, her work is part of what got this done, and we owe our thanks to her. 
 The remaining recommendations are divided into three groups. The first group of the highest priority recommendations include a new recommendation calling for an itemization threshold for conduit contributions. To others, related to for national prohibition, continuing prior to for the commission, and finally, increasing the compensation for efficacy commissioners, staff director, General Counsel, is in the highest priority group. 
 Other priority legislative recommendations include nine related to the Federal election campaign act and the third three other improvements recommended by the commission. 
 Once a commission has approved these legislative recommendations, we will provide them to legislation and to Congress. 
 Developing these recommendations starting with attentional topics suggested by staff and commissioners. I'd like to thank the chair for making more time for this project this year, and making it a priority for the commission, and I would like to thank all the commissioners and always my colleagues throughout the agency for their contributions to legislative recommendations. Thank you, Madam chair. 
 [ Inaudible - muffled ] 
  I want to thank everybody involved in pushing this recommendations across the line. 
 We had discussions on the hill, we are looking for to influence to get these programs I'm grateful, is long overdue what are the things we have in this program that has been incredibly successful. 
 One things that has been interesting about the legislative recommendations, that they are really a great way for Commissioner and staff to push across meaningful change. Some of those don't get enough votes from the commissioners to go into our registered recommendations, but they made it there. And many of you are jumping off point for us to have discussions to be thinking critically about things that can benefit the agency, and benefit the public and the voters. 
 So, I'm excited that we are in a continued expansion of this list of legislative recommendations. And the folks on the hill are open and looking forward to the recommendations. We are impressively moving together on things we find important. 
 Further discussion? 
 Thank you, Madam chair. I also appreciate all the efforts of staff and by colleagues in putting this together. It's a package, I think we each have our favorites in the package. Some of these I feel more strongly about than others, but one thing that I very much appreciate about it is the commission has made a decision that we will only forward recommendations that have unanimous support of the commission. And, I think that's a really important principle, and it makes it a more persuasive document getting it up to the hill, because if we agree on something, then I think that sometimes helps people on the hill say well, maybe that hits into a field worth doing. We recently saw the house on a bipartisan basis move forward on a bill based on one of these recommendations, and that was very exciting. You know, bipartisan priority here, and it was a bipartisan priority there. And I hope that it will ultimately become a bipartisan party across Congress and passed into law. 
 So that's a great precedent, and it's nice to see people actually read the document we send over there. 
 Thanks, Madam chair. I will whip brief. Let me join in expressing my thanks and appreciation to the congressmen and their staffs, it's a very big accomplishment for the agency as a ten-year reauthorization, which is twice as long as I think, any previous authorization we've gotten for this program, which used to be authorizing two-year increments, maybe. I think that as a firm side of confidence from Congress that they've given us such a long way to continue that program. 
 We reference we all have our favorites, but I agree that I would emphasize, these are all unanimously supported by all six commissioners. A single Commissioner could strike one is of the list, but they are supported by all six. In fact, arguably more given that some of these earlier commissioners voted for this recommendations, and it will get to be repeated. 
 I appreciate the staff on the hill taking it seriously. I want to highlight just one that is the new one that's important to me which is recommendation to Congress to extend the time. That the commission has to act on a complaint, before the complaining party is in tired to file a delay sued under a Federal election campaign act, from hundred 20 days to 240 days. We asked them to make sure that parties to file complaints that they have a mechanism to make sure they're not ignored and sat on by the commission. I think that's important to know about the act. The increasing complexity LaLonde the increasing come laxity of the complaints and the resource challenges that the agency is long period of time, that 120 day. Is no longer realistic. It has become instead a tool for sophisticated complainants to use litigation as a means for getting priority for their own complaints over maybe other complaints that came through the door earlier. I think 140 days, is more reasonable as a timeline given the changes in circumstances. If the legislative recommendation thanks Madam chair. 
 Briefly. I appreciate the turn of the phrase, we have our favorites, and educated in servers, will be surprised, I interested with inflation, it's not what this agency comes with economics. I think it's important for Congress to update its statutes it away that reflect finding a case loss of the rules on the books are not [ Inaudible - muffled ] . That said, when it at my piece especially to -- Rigidly my staff was instrumental in obtaining -- Well I guess we got half a generation in the administrative program, which is very good. 
 At some risk of being a bit of a downer, was sake of my hope that in time, it will be made uncontroversial and an excellent program. I hope it's not forgotten. When we are scrambling here eight years, that no one is here scrambling eight years. My thanks in particular to my colleagues. 
 Any further discussion? 
 Any motion? 
 Thank you, Madam chair, with respect to congressional legislation recommendations for 2023, I move approval of the documents subject to the edits discussed by staff at the table. 
 The motion passes anonymously. 
 That concludes our meetings for today, but before we move on to election of officers for the upcoming year, it is tradition to take a few minutes to recognize the service of our longer serving staff. 
 At 20 years, we have on a piña Wallace, Robert Knop, Becky Wood, Patricia Okura, Kevin Daly, 30 years, Jim Burrell, 35 years, Kevin Sally, Nancy Sally, Donna Smith, Billy Hart, and Franklin Newby. 
 Jim Jones at 40, Intuit 45 years, these are incredible milestones to reach. I am so grateful and the commission is grateful for all of their incredible service to the commission. So I will also take a moment of personal privilege here to discuss a few things were done this year. 
 We have held two hearings. One, in regard to our audit procedures, and one around that Canada salaries which we just pass. After years of internal handling and external frustration we revolve our audit processes. We jumpstarted our hiring processes, contended a oversight hearing. We advocated for and passed a extension, and MO you with the Department of Justice that [ Inaudible - muffled ] , we passed two critical relations, one of which, will hopefully encourage and enable more people to run for office. 
 Our staff has been hard at work updating our filesystem to a [ Inaudible ] system that takes into account many of the comments and complaints that the commission incurs  over the years. That is part due to a budget we were able to receive this year we finally did look into [ Inaudible - muffled ] . 
 One of the things I'm most proud of is that, we walk amongst ourselves now in the commission, and consensus where possible. There've been a number of matters we were split, had we not reached across the aisle to find areas to agree, we are six very different people with different experiences, and look through issues differently. We can only discover when we talk to each other, about the things we disagree. 
 I have been consistently impressed by the professional communication, despite working with adequate assistance, limited resources, our staff continues to bring energy and creates product every day, and for our enterprise architecture support team for finding innovative wafer processing financials supports, and alternate discrete resolution. To our attorneys, keeping up to speed on the rapidly changing landscape, your information, Gretchen creating, across educational programs, are staff worked diligently to support. [ Inaudible - muffled ]  I wanted that my staff for all that they do. I appreciate them and their work. To my fellow commissioners, thank you for your advices I navigated jumping into the chair seat of the commission. Thank you to the agency staff there also key people who are not generally in the public eye but have been essential to the running of this agency. Larry Calvert helped sister everything. He's who I look to all the time. Thank you. To Laura, Vicki Maureen, Secretary's office. Thank you for running the show. 
 And for folks in the control room who really keep us functioning. To Lauren Lee who many of us -- Not in the public eye very often, but does more to help us move work than any of us actually know. 
 So, with that, it's time to elect our leadership for next year. 
 Commissioner Weintraub, thank you Madam chair, and that was really an encouraging summary of the year. And I share your appreciate -- Appreciation to all the staff to help us accomplish those. It is my privilege to nominate Sean Cooksey to serve as the chair for 2024. He's been in the private sector, public sector and in the public sector has served in all three branches of government. I didn't Clark. He's one up on me on branches of government, but it is a pretty impressive series of accomplishments. He worked in the Senate, clerk for the Fifth Circuit, and work for a leading law firm and since he is been here has been courteous, and helpful, and I am frequently impressed by his incisive regal reasoning. I look forward to to working with him as he takes the helm for 2024, and I move that the commission elect Sean Cooksey as chair of the FEC for 2024. 
 In a discussion of questions? Before I moved to votes, I tried to institute a let's not talk for the talk of talking I share here. But I say, working with Commissioner Cooksey this year has been wonderful. We've had a great relationship across our offices, and with each other where we have talked things through, figure out ways to get past roadblocks, and I share all of that we have accomplished might not of been possible without your work. 
 With that, all in favor? Aye? Motion passes it endlessly. 
 Thank you Madam chair, thank you to my colleagues. 
 Madam chair, it's my privilege to nominate Commissioner Weintraub to serve as vice chair for 2024. She needs no introduction, she served on the commission since 2002, White House appointment first in 2002, and confirmation right thereafter. She too has a lot of experience in the private and the public sector, we are the two former Hill rats of the commission, Commissioner Weintraub had a distinguished tenure on the House Ethics Committee, shows a work in private practice at two top law firms both in DC and New York, if I have that right? She brings a stellar academic background to the commission as well, with degrees from Harvard and Yale, and Commissioner Weintraub it is no stranger to the center of the dais, having served as leadership many times. She needs no tutorials or no introductions, that comes with being by share, and I too, admired Commissioner Weintraub's voluminous encyclopedic knowledge of the law we administer. Importantly from my perspective, the history of the building for the operation of the building, and every nook and cranny that she has been able to experience here, so I'm looking forward to benefiting from that experience through my chair year, it is my privilege to nominate Commissioner Weintraub. 
 Any discussion? 
 Thank you, appreciate the vice chairs gracious words, but I have some additional thoughts. 
 The votes for chair and vice chair are a traditional team. First, most essentially, the chair and vice chair are separate offices must by law be held by different parties and rotate in different parties. Second each parties caucus Alexis nominee's position. But there is a third custom that each Commissioner serves as by Sharon chair once during his or her term. In that tradition is at the intention of the vice chair. It's appropriate to have this conversation here today for Commissioner Broussard's outsized contribution to the work of the FEC.  Regulations that lay dormant for decades or being passed. Real bipartisan compromises happened in the last three years after a long term of recrimination and public attack. 
 This takes nothing from Commissioner Weintraub's long tenure. But this will be her third time as vice chair, and issue remains of the commission is nominated, her first time as chair. Commissioner Broussard is never served as chair. Commissioner Broussard has called upon the chair after immediately serving in 2003, and she cared that heavy burden gracefully without self-promotion. There were historic documents that set the counsel where it is today, in my view, she did not err by forgoing her chance as serving as vice chair. Simply put, she would do a fine job. It's her turn. She served over many than 20 years. I think that decision [ Inaudible - muffled ]  I find it inappropriate to move on Commissioner Broussard and I cannot support it. 
 If the motion should fail, and my nomination for Commissioner Broussard I would encourage her to accept the motion. 
 Madam chair. 
 We find ourselves in a unique spot today do to failed leadership in the executive branch to exercise its statutorily granted authority to nominate people in this body for consideration by the Senate. 
 The last administration made this a priority, and the Senate leadership at that time took what action to fulfill its role at advice and consent. If the present administration were to focus on how campaigns are funded, and whose donating, then this issue that we find ourselves facing right now would not be a problem. 
 My vote here is in no way to be construed as a comment on Commissioner Weintraub, her abilities, or her unquestioning commitment to administration here at the FEC, or her service to the American people.  Instead, my vote here today is a call for the White House to do its job, and replace commissioners who like myself, are out of term. The system here works best when the rules are followed by everyone. In fact, our job here, is to make sure that candidates, and elected officials, although -- Follow the rules of the game. My vote will highlight in all a overlooked rule that needs to be resurrected. The White House needs to make a priority of nominating people to serve on this commission so we can have commissioners to fully exercise their authority without question. Thank you, Madam chair. 
 I would say this is not how I had hoped that the last meeting of the year would go. It is usually not how this goes. 
 It is unfortunate at this time right now, but we will continue to talk. We will get past this. 
 As we continue to make this agency a functioning place, where we can discuss real issues and have conversations in advance so that we can serve this agency's commission. With that, do we have a motion? All in favor? Aye. 
 All oppose. No. 
 The motion passes 4-1, with one abstention, with Commissioner Broussard, Weintraub, Cooksey, and himself in favor, and Commissioner Trainor opposed. And, Commissioner dissidents Dickerson abstaining. Mr. staff director, I'm sorry, hold on. 
 I just want to make a quick comment about your chair here. 
 Thanks. 
 I appreciate your comments about me. I want to reciprocate them, because I to have very much enjoyed our year. You are right, I agree with you that all six of us are different, you and I are very different, but there's a lot of things in this job that we agree on, and more importantly, even when we disagree about the substance, we never do so in a disagreeable way. I have enjoyed our phone calls, collaboration, talking about our trouble with our small kids, and things like that, and all the different challenges we face as working parents. And getting through a lot of the thorny knots that come up as part of his job. Did he get time to get over obstacles and try to collaborate. I just want to thank you. I think your remarks about old the things we've done this year, speak for themselves in terms of the accomplishments. Very remarkable, especially firsthand what we got done, and I think there is more that we can do. So I'm sure I'll be relying on your wisdom, and your experience in that role. I have a small gift. Of the things you listed off, I have a Momento in your favor, as our oversight hearing. 
 This is an official photo, govern and photo, a result of the government fun, there's a copyright and licensing fee, but memorializing, our swearing-in in front of the committee and has administration. So, I hope you look on that photo finally, mostly because it represents something in the past. So, thank you very much, again. For your help this year. I really appreciate it. 
 Thank you. [ Laughter ]  
 Thank you so much. So, let's if I can finally get it right. Are there any administrative manage and thank you for not spring went on me. And that concludes our open agenda. 
 Meeting is adjourned. 
 Standby. [ Event Concluded ]