This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on August 02, 2018. This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.

>> GOOD MORNING TO OPEN MEETING OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FOR THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, IT IS IN SESSION. WELCOME EVERYBODY. THE FIRST IS CORRECTION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES . ENTERTAINING A MOTION .

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING JUNE 28 2018 AS SET FORTH IN AGENDA DOCUMENT NUMBER 18 35 A .\

ALL IN FIVE OR FAVOR .

AYE'S >> WE WILL FLIP THE ORDER BECAUSE ON THE ADVISORY OPINION FROM CONGRESSMAN DARRELL ISSA , WE ARE WAITING . SO THE SECOND ITEM ADVISORY 2018 10, DAVID BATEMAN . AND A PRESENTATION BY ONE OF OUR SUMMER INTERNS, MR. JEDEDIAH BLAKE. WELCOME AND THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING .

LOCAL MADAM CHAIR, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS . [INDISCERNIBLE] SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED UTAH PARTY . THE REQUEST OR ASK IF IT QUALIFIES FOR A STATE COMMITTEE . THE DRAFT SAYS THE AGENDA MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE POLITICAL PARTY. THE FIRST IS A POLITICAL PARTY AND THE SECOND IS THE OFFICIAL POLITICAL PARTY STRUCTURE, AND ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY-TO- DAY OPERATIONS ON THE STATE LEVEL PURSUANT TO THE ACT AND REGULATIONS. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST OR THE DRAFT . THANK YOU AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NICE JOB. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? DID YOU KNOW POLITICAL PARTIES NEED TO COME HERE TO GET APPROVAL TO BECOME PARTIES ?

I KNOW THAT NOW.

GOOD JOB.

IS THERE A MOTION? >> AFTER THAT BRILLIANT PRESENTATION I HAVE NO QUESTIONS . I ONLY WANT TO MOVE APPROVAL. OF THE DRAFT. SO I DO SO , I MOVED FOR APPROVAL IN ANSWER TO THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED UTAH PARTY [INDISCERNIBLE] AS SET FORTH IN DOCUMENT 18 37 A BIT

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR . THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY . THANK YOU VERY MUCH .

SO THE NEXT AND FINAL ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS ADVISORY OPINION 18 2008 . WE WILL TAKE A BRIEF RECESS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET [INDISCERNIBLE] ON THE PHONE . WE WILL DO THAT AND HOPEFULLY BE BACK SOON. >> [CAPTIONER STANDING BY] >> HELLO AGAIN. SO WE WAITED FOR A LITTLE WHILE FOR A CALL AND WE ARE TOLD HE IS TRAVELING TODAY AND CANNOT CALL IN, AT LEAST NOT RIGHT NOW . MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE DIDN'T REQUEST THAT WE HOLD IT INDEFINITELY UNTIL HE WAS ABLE TO GET ON THE PHONE. WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE NEXT ADVISORY OPINION .

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ALSO, THIS IS NEVEN STIPANOVIC'S FIRST MEETING. OUR NEW ACTING ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL. IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT IS CORRECT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WELCOME . HE

HIS FIRST MEETING IN THIS NEW [INDISCERNIBLE]

THANK YOU . WE APPRECIATE IT . WE HAVE A PRESENTATION THIS MORNING BY MR. JOSEPH WINS A .

GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS , AGENDA DOCUMENT 1836 A IS A RESPONSE BY CONGRESSMAN DARRELL ISSA , REQUESTING IF HE CAN ACTIVATE HIS PREVIOUS PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED COMMITTEE. AND FOR FUNDS TO THE PRINCIPAL COMMITTEE TO THE REACTIVATED COMMITTEE TO REPLAY PART OF THE LOAN TO THE COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE MAY TRANSFER FUNDS TO THE REACTED COMMITTEE REGARDING THEIR REQUIREMENTS BUT IT MAY AND NOT ACCOUNT FOR [INDISCERNIBLE] AT $250,000 POSTELECTION LIMIT ON REPAYMENT OF LOANS ESTABLISHED BY PARTISAN CAMPAIGNER DOES NOT APPLY TO THE LOAN MADE BY THE CANDIDATE . WE RECEIVED NO COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST OR THE DRAFT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I HAVE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT THIS OPINION. AND I APPRECIATE THE COUNCILS WORK ON THIS. THE DRAFT , THE DRAFT LARGELY RELIES ON , I THINK THE STRONGEST PRECEDENT IS A 1985 [INDISCERNIBLE]. WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT THIS I THOUGHT IF I WERE WRITING ON A CLEAN SLATE , I DON'T THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH IT. I THINK THE ANALYSIS WAS BACK IN THE 80s, THEY HAD MUCH MORE ABBREVIATED ANALYSES. THAT IS NOT THE WAY I WOULD'VE DECIDED THAT . THEN I HAD TO ASK MYSELF WHETHER I AM IN SOME SENSE OBLIGATED TO SAY THE SAME THING, IN 2018 , THAT THE COMMISSION SAID IN 1985. THE COMMISSIONER SAID THAT IN 1985 . I DON'T THINK I AM . I DON'T THINK I AM REQUIRED , FROM REAL PRINCIPLES, THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH AND I DON'T THINK SET GOOD POLICY . WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SITUATION THAT IS SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL. THE REQUESTER RAN UNSUCCESSFULLY FOR THE SENATE IN 1998 I BELIEVE . SO 20 YEARS AGO HE INCURRED , HE LOANED HIS CAMPAIGN MONEY TO UNSUCCESSFULLY RUN FOR THE SENATE . THAT COMMITTEE WAS ULTIMATELY TERMINATED . HE WENT ON TO RUN SUCCESSFULLY FOR THE HOUSE. AND RECENTLY DECIDED NOT TO RUN FOR REELECTION , AND FOUND HIMSELF WITH A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY STILL SITTING IN HIS CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT, CLOSE TO THREE QUARTERS OF $1 MILLION. AND THE QUESTION IS , CAN HE REACTIVATE A CAMPAIGN FOR THE SENATE , HIS CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR THE SENATE, WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN TERMINATED FOR 16 YEARS. MAYBE 14 YEARS, IN ORDER TO TRANSFER THE FUNDS THAT ARE REMAINING IN HIS CURRENT CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT COME BACK TO THAT ACCOUNT TO PAY HIMSELF BACK FOR A 20-YEAR-OLD DEBT. MY STRONG SUSPICION IS THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT CONTRIBUTED THE THREE QUARTERS OF $1 MILLION CURRENTLY SITTING IN HIS ACCOUNT, MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN HE EVEN RAN FOR THE SENATE 20 YEARS AGO. PROBABLY WERE UNAWARE THAT HE , THAT HE HAD LOANED HIMSELF THE MONEY AND IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO USE HIS CURRENT CAMPAIGN HOLDINGS TO PAY HIMSELF BACK. SOMETHING THAT AT LEAST IN THOSE AMOUNTS, CONGRESS HAS LONG MOVED AWAY FROM AND DECIDED POLICY. SO I THINK UNDER ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE NEED TO REACTIVATE A VERY OLD ACCOUNT TO PAY BACK AND EVEN OLDER DEBT TO HIMSELF, THAT BASICALLY ALLOWS HIM TO TAKE WHAT IS LEFT IN HIS CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT, AND PUT IT IN HIS OWN POCKET . THAT STRIKES ME AS BAD POLICY , NOT UNDER THE LETTER OF THE LAW , AND I DON'T THINK BECAUSE THE COMMISSION MADE A DECISION IN 1985 THAT I AM BOUND TO JUST COME WITHOUT THINKING , DO EXACTLY WHAT THE COMMISSION , I CAN DISTINGUISH IT ON THE FAX, A MUCH SMALLER LOAN, IT WAS $10,000. WITH THE TIME LAG, IN ANY EVENT . I DON'T THINK I AM REQUIRED TO REPEAT A MISTAKE THE COMMISSION MADE IN 1985. SO I CANNOT SUPPORT THE DRAFT . I DO SUPPORT THE PART THAT SAYS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES YOU CANNOT USE RECOUNT FUNDS FOR THAT PURPOSE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO COMMISSIONER WALTER .

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I AGREE WITH VICE CHAIR WEINTRAUB, HOWEVER I THINK [INDISCERNIBLE] IT BECAME CLEAR YOU COULD NOT REPAY YOURSELF, A POLICY THAT THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED AT THAT TIME, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AND BEFORE THAT THE LAW WAS CHANGED BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT , THIS IS THE MOST THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE REPAID . AND I THINK THE LAPSE OF TIME, THE REALISM OF TIME , AT ONE TIME 11 YEARS. AND THEN WHEN YOU GET BACK INTO 20 YEARS AT $700,000, NOTHING GETS BACK TO TRAVEL FROM ONE ENTITY TO ANOTHER, FOR A DIFFERENT RACE ENTIRELY . I THINK WE ARE PUSHING THE ENVELOPE ON WHETHER THAT CAN BE JUSTIFIED. I WILL NOT SUPPORT IT BUT I WOULD AGREE TO SUPPORT A FIGURE OF ONE QUARTER OF $1 MILLION . THAT IS THE POLICY ESTABLISHED NOW. AND WOULD FIND REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS . MR. PETERSON . >> YOU CAN USE MINE. >> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR, I WILL BORROW YOUR MICROPHONE FOR A MOMENT . I WILL SPEAK BRIEFLY, I AGREE WITH THE DRAFT AND I THINK I GUESS A STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE, APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND THE OPINION CONTEXT . IT'S OBVIOUSLY A BIT OF AN UNUSUAL REQUEST. WHEN I FIRST SAW THE QUESTION RAISED, THE ANSWER DID NOT IMMEDIATELY COME TO MIND. AS I SEE THE ANALYSIS SET FORTH IN THE DRAFT I AGREE WITH IT. AND SO AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME I AM HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT ITS PASSAGE.

THANK YOU . A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FROM MY COLLEAGUE, MADAM VICE CHAIR. LET ME ASK THE QUESTION, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THE TRANSFER, IS THE PART YOU ARE NOT OKAY WITH IS IT IS A TRANSFER FOR A PURPOSE OF REPAYING THE LOAN TO HIMSELF ? WHAT IF IT WAS JUST A TRANSFER PART PAYING OTHER DEBTS ? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE STATUTE IN THE REGS PREVENT UNLIMITED TRANSFERS FROM A CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, AS IT SAYS AS LONG AS THE CANDIDATE IS NOT ACADEMY . A CANDIDATE FOR MORE THAN FEDERAL OFFICE AT A TIME AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT. SO THAT THE PREVIOUS CAMPAIGN, THE OTHER COMMITTEE TO WHICH IT IS BEING TRANSFERRED, IS A PREVIOUS FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE . IT SEEMS LIKE ALL OF THAT CHECKS OUT HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE PART THAT HE IS PAYING HIMSELF BACK, OR THE TRANSFER ITSELF? AS YOU KNOW PEOPLE ARE TRANSFERRING ALL THE TIME AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO [INDISCERNIBLE]

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WOULD BE NO PURPOSE TO REACT TO THE THE COMMITTEE TRANSFERRING FUNDS OTHER THAN TO PAY HIMSELF. BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER DEBTORS. THAT ACTUALLY WAS SOMETHING THAT FACTORED INTO MY THINKING ALSO NO OTHER DEBTOR WOULD BE IN THE POSITION TO ASK, CAN YOU PAY ME BACK FOR A 20-YEAR-OLD DEBT. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS LONG RUN ON ANY DEBTS. THE ONLY REASON THIS ONE IS AT ISSUE IS BECAUSE THE DEBTOR AND CREDITOR ARE BASICALLY THE SAME PERSON . I AM NOT TRYING TO CLOUD THE ISSUE WITH TRANSFERS IN GENERAL . WE ARE BEING ASKED ABOUT A SPECIFIC SET .

THANK YOU. IF THERE WERE OTHER DEBTORS , SAY 50 OTHER DEBTORS , AND THE REQUEST DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY I'M DOING THIS TO PAY MYSELF BACK, YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT, RIGHT ? BECAUSE IT'S A PREVIOUS FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE AND HARD DOLLARS. >> AS I SAID, NO OTHER DEBTOR WOULD BE ABLE TO ASSERT A CLAIM BECAUSE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ARE LONG GONE. >> THEY COULD ASSERT A CLAIM , IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL.

I WON'T GO INTO THE DETAILS BUT RECENTLY, WE ALLOWED COMMITTEES TO TERMINATE DESPITE DEBTS BECAUSE WE SAID THOSE DEBTS , THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN. SO THOSE PEOPLE ARE BASICALLY OUT OF LUCK .

SO JUST TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSFER ITSELF, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH TRANSFERRING FROM ONE COMMITTEE TO ANOTHER AS PER REGULATION ALLOWANCE. >> I AM NOT TRYING TO CAST A CLOUD ON TRANSFERS IN GENERAL. WE ARE BEING ASKED TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, AS ALWAYS IN CONTEXT, WE ARE BEING ASKED A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTS .

SO THE TRANSFER IS NOT THE PROBLEM, THE ISSUE IS THE CONGRESSMAN WOULD LIKE TO PAY HIMSELF BACK .

IT IS THE WHOLE CONSTELLATION. THE ONLY REASON FOR REACTIVATING THE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY YES TO, IS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE A TRANSFER OF THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE TRANSFER IS TO PAY THE CONGRESSMAN BACK. >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT SUPPORT IN THE LAW THERE IS FOR THAT PROPOSITION. AS WE SAID THE LAW SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS THIS TYPE OF TRANSFER. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU FIND IT UNSAVORY THAT THE CONGRESSMAN WANTS TO PAY HIMSELF BACK. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW.

I DON'T THINK THE LAW REQUIRES US TO REACTIVATE COMMITTEES FROM 20 YEARS [INDISCERNIBLE] CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. >> I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU CAN SPEAK TO TO REACTIVATE COMMITTEES YEARS AFTER. IN FACT IT HAS NOT HAPPENED VERY OFTEN. WE HAD TO GO BACK TO 1985 TO FIND A PRECEDENT ON THIS.

THANK YOU . ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON .

I MAKE THE MOTION . >> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR, WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUEST AN ADVISORY OPINION , DRAFT ADVISORY OPINION 2018-08 , I AM APPROVAL OF DRAFT A, SET FORTH IN 18 36 A.

THANK YOU.

MR. PETERSON, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR.

FOR THE RECORD I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT I WOULD APPROVE WERE IT NOT FOR THE QUARTER OF $1 MILLION. I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION.

THANK YOU. OBVIOUSLY EVEN IF COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER WALTHER JOINED US IT WOULD ONLY BE THREE VOTES. WE WILL DO THAT BUT ONE MORE TIME. ALL IN FAVOR ? ONE MORE TIME. >> THE MOTION FAILS BY A VOTE OF 222 . COMMISSIONER PETERSON AND I VOTING IN FAVOR, AND THE VICE CHAIR AND [INDISCERNIBLE] VOTING AGAINST.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S ANY INTEREST IN PAYING A MOTION TO DIRECT COUNSEL TO DRAFT A RESPONSE THAT WOULD SAY THE COMMISSION AGREES THAT YOU CANNOT USE RECOUNT FUNDS [INDISCERNIBLE]

I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. HE IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE THE MONEY ANYWAY. >> ALRIGHTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ? THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL WILSON THE APPROPRIATE LETTERS.

THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO THE END OF THE AGENDA FOR TODAY . MR. PALMER, ARE THERE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS WE NEED TO DISCUSS ?

MADAM CHAIR, THERE ARE NO SUCH MATTERS .

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. >> [EVENT CONCLUDED]