This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on May 26, 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.

Good morning. The open meeting  for the Federal Election Commission  for May 26, 2022 will come to order.  We have a late submitted document.  

Thank you. I'm going to suspend  the rules on the time of submission  of the documents in the order that  the commission may consider the  late submission of agenda document  number 22-17-B  .  

Thank you. Is there any  discussion in the motion? All in  favor? We have three matters  in our agenda this morning. Two  of which are proposed in final rules. If you would be kind enough to  introduce the first .  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good  morning, missioners. Before you  is a draft in final rule that will  conform the commission's independent  expenditure reporting regulations  for the decisions of the United  States District Court for the District  of Columbia and United States court  was feels for D.C. circuit in . It was found  to be unlawful under the administered  of procedure act, because it contained  a phrase that substantially narrowed  the statutory provision. The draft followed before you from a regulation in accordance  with the court's decisions.  Thank you. I would be happy to address  any questions.  

Thank you very much. Any questions  for the General Counsel? 
     

Thank you. 
     The commission is going to abide  by the. This came before us in an unusual fashion. 
     I cannot recall another --. I'm sorry. I'm jumping ahead.  Wrong world. I got something different to say  about this one. I apologize. Save  that thought,  and I will bring that up later. This one I thought was going to  be uncontroversial. My apologies. I expected this to  be uncontroversial and supporting the interim final rule in this  case. My office received a rather unusual  ex parte communication about 15  minutes before the meetings from crew. It was involved in the underlined renovation. They indicated that  they would like to file a comment.  While I didn't think it was controversial 
     and I was planning on supporting  it, I am always open to hear what the public has  to say. I would suggest that we  postpone the voting on this until  the next meeting in order to allow  that comment.  

For the discussion?  

I have a question. While this was interim final rule,  is not the case at the public has the ability to submit  comments, while the will is pending?  

Yes, they do. The commission would normally not  consider such comments. It  is usually until after the role  will go into effect. They  could later decide to reopen the  role, because once it goes into  effect, it is final. It is called  an interim final rule, but it's  final as soon as it goes into effect. We ask that this go into effect  around September 30, which is when  it appears the 30  legislative days will be up. The way I think it will wind up  working is that the commission will  do this today, there will be a 30 day comment  period, we receive comments, such  as the loan that crew wishes to  file and the role will go into effect  around September 30, then a pre-commission  in that time. Other comments and decided it wanted  to make some changes based on it,  then it will reopen and make whatever  changes the commission deemed necessary. 
     

This  document was put on the open meeting  agenda a week ago. 
     

I believe that's correct. 
     

Thank you very much. For those  reasons, I think crew has something  to comment. They have an opportunity to comment and they had the ample  opportunity the last seven days  to comment, as the public does.  Usually post documents in the sunshine act.  I'm also interested in what they  have to say, but I think this train  is leaving the station on time --  or should be leaving the station  on time. I think we should proceed  with it.  

Thank you.  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can  appreciate that we want the train  to run on time, but the I want the train to get to the right place  and wrote. I don't think the request  for a comment, even though I find  this to be incredibly frustrating  that it's coming in this moment  and delete, I think we should be  considering it. While I am the cosponsor for lack of better word words,  I support the intention on it. I  don't think the changes are going  to be that hard for us to make,  because it's going to be tracking  the statutory language . I'm not sure if you had the chance  to review that.  

We haven't  had a chance to review the public  comment.  

 With that,  and without the ability for our  counsel, can we get additional assurance about what's going on here?  

I have  three thoughts. As Mr. Knop noted,  the purpose of this procedure is  to move quickly to comply with the  court order , while leaving to a future date. I think this  is something we will need to do  to do a proper rulemaking that will  address any ambiguities created  in the regulations complying with  the court order.  Again, the way this is set  up procedurally is that comments  come in after the rules adopted  are considered,  then a rulemaking would be open  to due course. I don't see a last-minute  request for commenting as quite proper  under this approach to the role. I find it very curious  that counsel will try to delay the commission complying with a  court order in a case they one.  That struck me as very strange. Frankly, I  think it's unprofessional for counsel  to be reaching out to individual the day of,  rather than sending things improperly. 
     At this point, for anyone who is  listening to this, you practice  in front of the commission. We do  want to hear from you, but there  are ways to do it. This is not it. We will put  this document as an expert take  medication on the public record.  As a matter of collegiality, we  will request commissioners , even though I don't think this  is proper. I hope the rest of the  public will avail itself in the  time that has been bought by councils tactic.  

Thank you. I appreciate that.  I just want to be very clear. This  is a total surprise to me, too.  I know way in -- invited this aspartate compact.  I too would appreciate it if comments would come in the regular  order.  

Any further discussion on  this matter? With a heavy heart, will hold this until the next open  meeting. The next matter on our  agenda is another final rule , governor payment of candidate  loans.  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  The board of commission is a draft  in term final rule making necessary  changes to our regulations and court  decision. This was a decision 10  days ago on May 16. The court held a vote  of six to three on section 304 in 2002 --  candidates ability to seek repayment  of personal loans for their authorized  committees by their First Amendment. That was in  affirmance of the unanimous panel  ruling in the District of Columbia reaching the same holding. In light of that, because the underlying  statute is unconstitutional, art implement regulations,  as well.  It removes the implementing regulations, which are only a handful from the Code of Federal Regulations  in compliance with the Supreme  Court's ruling. This is a draft that  came from my office, but it's been  reviewed multiple times by the policy  division. There was significant  input from the division. I want  to thank Mr. Knop  for his  expertise and help that  went into crafting this  document and vetting it. I think  this is an important rulemaking. We are in election year. We had  primary elections several weeks  ago and we have more coming up. A lot of campaigns and candidates  are going to be wondering what the  limits are on their ability to repay  personal loans to their committees . While I think it's safe to say  that well fondled -- funded and will counsel committee, part of being clear and  getting good guidance  as an agency overseeing this area  of law is making sure our regulations  reflect the state of law. For all those reasons, I think  it's a simple thing you can do.  I think it would be good. I  take it would be good to do it in  a timely matter, rather than waiting  a year. For that, I would  urge my colleagues to split the  final rule.  

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I  do think it's important for us to  issue that's not final rule for  this and the previous matter, however -- I've expressed this concern  outside the meeting -- I think this should have voted for the regulation , which is understaffed, overworked  and  we all agreed that they are excellent,  but they can only do so much. If  we prioritize what we should be  working on and focus on salaries and what we  just previously considered, I don't  think it appropriate to be looking  at this. 
     Thank you.  

I think  we may have a sense of where you  are going.  

Sorry about that. I jumped the  gun on this one. I agree with my  colleague . I think that we should refer to  this matter to the regulations committee,  which is very well led by the chairman  and commissioner. They can consider this in light  of all of our other rulemaking priorities,  which there aren't many. There are  many things that I have been trying  to get my colleagues to work is  on that focus on  for years. Sometimes it's hard to  get people to read a document. As I said, there is no question  that we are going to abide by the  Supreme Court decision. I think it's highly unlikely that  there are too many unsophisticated  candidates out there who will not be  well counseled, but they have more  than a quarter of $1 million to  loan their campaign. With those  kind of resources, they will hire  a lawyer. The Supreme Court opinion has obviously  gotten wide publicity. I don't think  anybody is going to be too confused  about this. Obviously, we should  get regulations in order. I do support  doing that. I support ordering our  regulatory priorities with the normal  process.  

I have a couple responses. The existence of  this particular procedure is precisely for the situations. 
     We have a booklet and some of us  have it in front of us right here,  which has the regulations of the  court to speak with the rule of  law on the Federal election campaign  act as supported by this agency.  That book is misleading. The first rule -- the rule of  law is that the law must be public.  This is very ancient. To have a situation where we are republishing  regulations that are affirmatively  wrong on the law 
     is encouraged by this agency is  very troubling. That's one reason  why I'm very disappointed that our  efforts to put in a final rule on  the previous matter -- a case with  which I have some personal disagreements and the courts  have spoken  that our roles are unenforceable.  I feel the same way here. I agree  with my colleagues that resources  are at a premium here. I agree that people know what the  law is in the light of the  Supreme Court ruling, but I don't  think that our responsibility as  a federal agency to make sure we  are on not at least putting out  misleading text and to do act as quickly as we  possibly can in situations where  it's clear and final order of a  court, which has validated our regulations. With respect, I  do think that this procedure exists for this situation .  I would understand the need for  further rulemaking in light of comments  that come in afterwards. We need  the legal requirements to move quickly. I would move it accordingly here and in a previous  matter. I'm hoping this passes,  because I do think we have an affirmative  duty to the American people to not  public inaccurate regulations. 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple points in response to  my colleagues.  I agreed that resources in the policy  division are at a premium. I initially  asked the policy division to draft  this on a blank slate. The Commissioner  objected. I did  it in house and myself .  I managed this draft myself and ask for technical  assistance and their expertise in  doing it, but I know allowing them  to do the work that is the general work of the  commission that we want them to  focus on. At the same time, I think  we can walk and chew gum.  We can do Internet disclaimers and  IFR's that are fairly simple and only a  few pages that conform with court  order. I don't see why one interferes  with the other. We are where  we are. It's a completed document.  I haven't heard any objections to  the substance of the document. They  are technically wrong, but it seems  like it needs to go through a process  that would result  in the document that we have before  us. If anything, I think the  resource conservation is on this  document today rather than allocating additional policy and commissioner  time, unless there are some  ejections to this content. 
     

Thank you, Mr.  Chairman. While I  am happy to state publicly that  I was the person who objected, because  the request to have the policy division  start drafting came before the Supreme Court had ruled. My objection  was that we should wait until we  have the opinion in hand before  we started drafting. Had we waited  until they had the opinion in hand  my colleague said, should the policy  division take a look at this, then  I would have  been happy to go along with that.  As I said, I cannot recall another  instance  where the commission was asked on  one weeks notice  to adopt as a  interim final rule, but yet a final  role in the document was in  one commissioner's office.  It was under one round of division  already, since it's been out for  one week. I think we should have  a little more time to make sure  we get it right. As I said, make sure it's been  properly vetted and gone through  the normal process.  >> The policy division -- do you feel  that this has sufficient time with  you and the better people in the  policy division as needed to vent  its contents and its technical components? 
     

We've taken a look at the drafts  and would support drafting .  

Thank you very much. 
     >> My concern in waiting is a practical  concern for practitioners in this  area.  I having a statute that has been  struck down by the court and having  a rule in place -- I think it puts  lawyers in a stuff -- tough  spot as to what sort of compliance they  need to be worried about. It gives  the appearance that the  commission that  especially now that we have this  draft out here and have this discussion  in public, give the appearance that  there may be some attempts to either  resurrect or revise the current  regulation. I think we put the lawyers in a tough spot . I would urge us to move quickly  on this, get it done, especially  in light of --. We just had primaries in Texas  and other states . Over the next few weeks, we have  a lot of people looking at this  issue. While commissioner is  correct, anybody who has money probably has the ability  to seek counsel. I worry about what  type of counsel they may receive,  because there  is a statute that has been struck  down, but a role that is still on  the books. Thank you.  >> The statute has been struck down,  but yet it is still on the books.  Congress has not rushed into wipe the statute off the books. We understand that lawyers will  understand that  statute does not apply anymore,  even if they look at the statute,  it still going to be there. I think nobody has been  terribly confused by this. We will  be dealing with this in  due course. I am planning on abstaining  on what I assume will be the motion to adopt, because  I assume that at some point we will  adopt something similar to this, but I don't think this is the day  or time.  

With some hope that we can act  with more Congress. Is there any  further discussion before we take  motions? Are there any motions? Commissioner Kirksey?  

Is there  any benefit to putting this off  for a very short period of time ? To consider the merits of the wording  at this time? Are we  pretty much  locked in?  

I haven't heard a lot  of ambiguity, but my colleagues  disagree that it is appropriate . I'm seeing a  lot of silence. 
     

It wouldn't be the first time. 
     

Commissioner Kirksey.  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With  respect to the final rule on candidate  loans, I am of approval of agenda  document 22-17-B.   

Any discussion? All  in favor. 
     

Sustained.  

I abstain, too.  

Three in favor and three abstentions. Thank  you very much. Move on to what I  would hope would be less controversial  and  satisfying result. 
     

Good morning, Commissioner. 
     >> Mr. Morrison.  

Good morning. 
     

Thank you. Good morning.  Agenda document  22-17-A  is submitted request in national committee. Plans to hire a consultant for  a research book about Republican  U.S. Senator  in a particular state, which refers  to as state a. Pay a -- $30,000 for research  book and copyright. After researching  the book and information contained, DSCC provides the book in full  to the authorized  committee of two candidates for  the Democratic nomination of the  U.S. tenant in state a. Authorized  committee choice of paying DSCC for the book, treating  the value of the book as a  unkind contribution from DSCC ordering  the value of a book as a coordinated  party manager by DSCC. DSCC asks for the value  of the resource book to each authorized  committee is $10,000  , one third of the amount it will  pay the consultant. The draft includes  the value of the research book to  each authorized committee is the  usual and normal charge for any  associate copyright license in the  market for which they. We did not receive any comment  from the request. Received seven  comments from individuals and two  comments.  

Thank you. Any questions for  the request or General Council?  
     

Thank you. I would like to give a  request to comment on the draft. I do find  the draft somewhat counterintuitive. It doesn't strike me as immediately obvious that three political committees  could insure the cost of producing  a document like this. What is counterintuitive is sometimes  a lot, so that's not a good way  to make decisions. I gathered that  the requester has a different point  of view on this. I would like to  give them a chance.  

Council?  

 Thank you, mission her and  Mr. Chairman. I want to explain  what brought us to seek this opinion,  because I think it would be help  full stubbornness before us. I have  been a practitioner in the space  for a long time now. I came to the commission due to general confusion. As practitioners in the space,  we try very hard to  read the and do our best to advise the clients.  We make our decisions every day. This is  one where I didn't feel comfortable  advising a client without coming  to the commission, because I think  the advisory opinions that are laid  out in draft A  are not  necessarily consistent. You can find a way to read them  consistently, but there is confusion.  My issue with draft A is that it takes an overly  technical rating of the law  and  writes out the facts of the old  advisory opinions to reach a conclusion . Quite frankly, I do to get answers  the question for the client. If  I walk out of here, I don't think I would know what to tell my client  about this book. The DSCC right  under the plan will  go under the copy of this book. It is not that I can tell them,  the value of that is $30,000, because  there is no usual normal charge for the exact same  book and copyright license. That  is not what they are getting.  They are getting the book to use  for their own purposes, but I don't  take it the same. 
     This was in our comments. I read  the advisory opinions, particularly very differently than  the draft reads them. I will go  through them quickly. It clearly states in the request and the commission's opinion that the two candidate committees are going to split the costs of  data that they both have full access  and use of. The commission at no point in the  response said that it's not proper. It was in the facts of  the published commission. I think both the opinion and the subsequent regulations  that we know in our comment to make  really clear  that the way to divide the cost  of a shared vehicle of transportation  is by splitting it and it is proportionate. The opinion doesn't make any sense  if you say that they are each going  down to pull the despot pay the  full freight. That will lead  to being overpaid. Again, when you  go to opinion  2007-24, it is the most  similar to all of our requests.  You have a canteen's desperate campaign  stuffer that is working to for two campaigns. They  are fully available to both and  are paying half of his salary. That  is half the cost of what it would  have cost them to pay their own  stuffer. The commission approved  it. It is really hard for me  as a practitioner to reconcile those  opinions with draft A.  I still walk away from draft A  fundamentally not answered my question . I don't know what to tell my client. I truly do apologize for sending  in the second comments so late this  morning. I was up late last night  thinking , as a practitioner does. I found  those two opinions for Minnesota,  which I think a lot of us know is  a for lack of a better term, aggressive regulator in the campaign-finance  space. They don't throw up their hands  and looked closely at the campaign-finance  system. Minnesota has acknowledged that the opinions are very old. It is proper for two campaigns  to split the cost of research that  they are equally using and have  a real and legitimate use for. That was back in 2004. Again, Minnesota is not the federal level and is at the state  level. I fully acknowledge that,  but I did think it is instructive  to look at how other regulatory  bodies analyze the same question. 
     I will see if any of the commissioners  have any questions.  

Thank you. 
     

It is how I have fun. What can  I say?  

Thank you for that explanation. In reading your response to the  draft, I was struck by the  portion where you talk about how  this could be reported as potentially $90,000 worth of  contributions. I have real concerns with reporting and making sure  the public has  a picture of what is going on. The request stated that the committee  was purchasing both the copyright and the work itself within  $1000.  We had its transferring to the committee  and something less. Clearly, it is less than the full  amount that the party committee  had purchased. That reporting situation would  not be the case that the party committee  was telling the individual candidate  committees what the value was. I was a little struck how you could  get to $90,000. Is it your intention  to  report the $90,000, even though  you are contributing less than what  the party purchased?  

That is an excellent question. That is one that I thought about  myself. I think the hard point where  I landed -- part of was I came to  the commission, if it is not the  $30,000 and it is not an even  split, what is it? How do I know? I added a lot of research contracts and far more than I wish I had  to. As a lawyer , it's hard to  know what the value would be if  you take with license. You can see  the research vendor saying , I will give it to you for $100  if I can sell it to other people.  I'm assuming the Commissioner doesn't  want the answer to be, what's the  value of this book in the market  without a copyright license? Now, campaign pays $100. If you  want that to be the answer, call  with me. That is totally fine, but  I think my struggle is that I don't  know how to exec you -- exactly valued in the market. I can't speak for other practitioners, but I have come across where you  want the copyright license and the  original pay order. You don't want  everyone to get your book. Maybe  you can't pay a premium for a copyright,  see play less. I don't know how  to do that in the context of a book  where the DSCC does want that license.  I thought through that same thing,  but I think it's tricky. Think that's  why the proportional split leads  to a much better Ansell that is  clean. The regulatory committee can figure  it out. There is no hard math we  have to do. 
     While also avoiding reporting the DSCC spending $30,000 on a book,  then  $60,000 worth of .  I think that is very misleading  to the public.  

Thank you for the answer. 
     I'm not sure I fully understand. The party committee is going to  purchase the book and an  exclusive copyright of the book  for $30,000?  

Correct.  

They are then going to transfer to the individual candidate committees purchased the book itself and not  the copyright?  

That's correct.  

Your concern  is that you can't put a value on  that ?  

My concern is that I don't think  the value of that to each candidate  is $30,000. 
     

I would agree with that, because  it $30,000 had to include the exclusive  copyright of the book.  

Right. I don't know how to value  a book without an exclusive copyright. I think it is much  more clear, concise and just as justifiable to say that we will split it personally. Again, looking at the Minnesota  opinion being handled.  

How is it that the  current draft does not give you  -- . I think it gives you a very wide  range to be able to tell the commission  what that value is. Does it not? 
     

I don't think that it does. As  a practitioner, I will tell you  that I don't feel comfortable advising  off the draft. I'm not shy under  any means. My colleague Zachary  can tell you that about advising  and using my got when I am giving counseling to  clients. I don't take it does, because  I don't know what the standard means  on how to apply to the  situation. If you look at the reasoning  in the draft, it cites . I really think it is inapplicable  here. Let me make sure I get the  number right. The Commissioner was extraordinarily  concerned .  They called that the paramount consideration  in getting to the conclusion. I  think that's very inapplicable here.  I'm very concerned about the stress  as it stands, because I think is  going to create even more confusion  on the regulated communities. My  opinion is wrong and not the estimate for the commission today.  I don't think that that opinion  is up to to these facts. I did the  other opinions are. The inclusion  and analysis in the draft is very  confusing to me. 
     

You really don't  have to worry about that considering  that my concern. 
     

Exactly. 
     

Thank you. The question  I had was, what would  happen if you gave this to a third  committee after the DSCC is already  paid for  and reporting that thing  was split between two  committees. What is the value? Is  it zero?  

That is a very good question. That is another one I also thought  of. That is not the scenario before  the commission. I don't think that  Sarah will be covered by this advisory  committee -- opinion.  I can fully understand your reaction  to that, because the commission's  goal is to create rules that cover all scenarios. I totally  get it. As a practitioner, I would advise that clients figure this out on the  front end. 
     If it is a third committee, they  might have to go back into the mint  and recalibrate. I think that is  messy, but I don't have a better  answer now for how to do this on  the front end. I understand that  it's complicated. That is the hard  thing about practicing in this space, as we all know as  practitioners or regulators. Things  are fluid and practices change. What I do know is that this question comes up a lot. It is one that causes a lot of confusion. Our proposed answer is the best  one under the circumstances. I can't speak to everyone under  the sun.  

Thank you for the answers you  have given so far. You mentioned just now , but it is not addressing the draft  and wasn't addressing your comments. I understand that you are given  the explicit opportunity to express  that.  

I don't mean to interrupt, but  we did not decline. We sent the  email to the commission. There was  a paragraph explain why we thought  it was inapplicable for the potential for legal corporate. 
     

I will look at council about  the accuracy of that, because I  was told differently.  
     

I'm  happy to find and forward the email  if that is helpful.  

To clarify, they declined to address it in the request. 
     

I apologize.  

Let's not talk over  each other.  

Not that they didn't  respond to our suggestion, but it  that they declined the record .  

I apologize . I think I assumed that the email  would go into the record, because  that is been my experience before.  I apologize that we didn't make  it clear on our end.  

Back to my original question,  which was that if you had anything else  to add about why you think a value  for Congress is wrong or should  be applied here? It seems on point at least in terms of the proposal  to split a shared resource between  a party committee and a corporation.  The nature of the resource is one  that is not rivalrous. Each committee can get full use  of the resource. The commission  declined to approve splitting the proposal.  

I have a series of points. You will see from our request in  the draft that there are four advisers  that deal with use of a shared resource. Committees get  the full benefit of it. This one  is the only one that says that a proportional share  of those costs is inappropriate.  I do get is a strong outliner on  those grounds. I think the reasoning  is very different, because the commission was viewing the request through  the lens of a corporate vendor , who will also share the resource. If you read the language of the  opinion, it says -- let me  pull this quote up, because it struck  me.  Essentially, it said that the  -- since the The Valley of the computer system  in its regard becomes paramount.  The commission seemed  very concerned. I think in some  ways they become overcautious in  that situation to avoid contribution. I  would further say that if 1985-19  is the role and any type of asset is fully shared to everybody, then  the commissions travel regulations and the polling regulations would  be. I don't think it's consistent  with later advisories or regulations.  

That goes to  my next question. Your reliance  on the regulations  and the travel costs are arguments against your  position. If your interpretation  of the general rule were correct,  we do what it needs those regulations,  because a journal role would be  that you can split costs. If you are right, those would be  redundant with the general rule. You agree that this isn't pulling  costs and air travel, right? If you are right, than those regulations  are superfluous? 
     

I don't view them as superfluous. As a practitioner in the field,  you can see it laid out on draft  day, the regulations cannot possibly  cover every question that will come  before the Commissioner at every  reiteration of an issue.  You can see that the commission  acknowledges in  draft A, which is covered by regulation  of the  . Just because regulations exist  on the topic does not tell me that it's best for one, then it doesn't mean that the same  valuation or analysis is applicable  to a different set of circumstances.  It tells me that the question came  up enough that the commission took  the time to come and get a rule  on it. 
     

I want to make sure I understand  the full scope of the logic of your  position here. The proposal is for  the DSCC  to commission the research book  and on the copyright, then give  it to committees for pole allocation  of $10,000 to each. By the  same logic, and at the same time , if you give it to three committees,  do you think the proper is 70  $500,000 each?  

If I give it to three committees,  then yes. I wouldn't just  give it to everyone under  the sun. I would  say that it is a concern. There is value in a research book  not getting into 1 million people's  hands, because it is obviously sensitive.  

Say you give it to 19 different  committees that the value to the 19th committee is different  than the value to the first committee. 
     

I can't imagine a world in which  there would be 19 candidates that  would have a use for a DSCC  research book.  I don't think that  is a reality that will confront or an issue for the commission.  >> You can imagine a situation in  which a commission for book of research  with the help to see that every  Democratic House candidate in the  country.  

I'm not the lawyer for DSCC. I can't speak  to that.   

Imagine there was a book that  the DSCC wanted to give  to its  candidates that were running. It  is your view that that needs to  be evenly supported based on the  division of whatever it is -- 33 or 34 candidates  running?  

Yes. That is how  polls work. I understand that it sounds radical  in the context of something we have  never thought about. That is how  a poll would work.  

We have a special regulation  for that, don't we?  

Sure.  I think you -- role of the commission is to  advise as soon as possible on  questions that are common and existing  in real-time. Maybe this is just  a difference of opinion between  the two of us. Of course, we are both  lawyers in the space, but I doubt  that the absence of a regulation  on point mean that logic doesn't  apply to other circumstances.  

Thank you very much. I have to say that I agree with  Commissioner Trainor that I found  your comments saying that you would  need under this opinion if it were  adopted and you need to report it  as $90,000 is wrong. The draft doesn't  say that. I'm  confused about why this is such  a unique problem. It  seems that committees have to deal with this  problem all the time in contributions.  Services rendered or things given as gifts  to the committee have to be evaluated. Sometimes it is easy to evaluate  that, because we have markets and  prices and we can look to what things  are worth. Other times, it is harder,  especially with things like services  rendered. We come into these things  all the time when it  comes to personal use and discounts  or things under charged and charged. Sometimes it is  easy to present somewhat difficult.  The FEC is not the pricing  commission. We need committees to make good  efforts to figure out what the appropriate  prices to charge and report. I think  that is what this draft does. It directs committees to engage -- it's a  vague process. It's a standard and  not a row. It directs committees  to engage in an effort to do that  process  and leaves us out of setting specific  dollars and cents for what ever  the under the sun might be worth  to a campaign. For that reason, I'm happy to support  the draft today if colleagues are  willing, but there is interest in  more time, then I would understand  that, too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

Commissioner, may I ask you a  follow-up question?  

That is not how this works. Are you seeking recognition? Council,  go ahead.  You may want to make  a point, then I ask a question. 
     

I really just want to ask a question. I don't know how to take this draft  and advise my client. I asked that -- it seems to  be a view that it is clear .  How would you do it if you are in  my position? How would you go back  and figure out the value of this  book without the copyright license?  

With the caveat that I am a lawyer,  but I am not the DSCC's lawyer.  It seems to me that one reasonable  thing that I have seen committees  do in the past is talk  to brokers  and people in the industry to ask  for reasonable evaluation. We do  this all the time. We evaluate email  lists, services rendered and other  things like that. It seems to be  standard practice. Delivered to  Ms. Lopez, because she's the expert.  

Can I ask a follow-up question?  I think we may be going into a  general direction. Ms. Lopez, you  want to make -- think about how  you feel about that. Let me ask a question to narrow  in the discussion. I  read the Minnesota regulators  in various codes that were cited. This is a very easy case for a joint purpose. What is tricking us up here is the topic.  

I would agree.  >> I'm a litigator and I  know you things say things off  the top. This is in a trap. Feel  free to explain yourself. We  wouldn't give it out to everyone  under the sun. That got me  thinking, because it seems to me  the reason you wouldn't give it  out to everyone is that you've reached  diminishing returns. The value of the committee is  further down the list and may be  different to the value of the two  committees that came in here. That  is why you often have joint purchases,  so that you know up front that those  entities will be able to make the  need out for the particular  piece. How do you think about  that problem? Not to put a point on it, but you are  not the only national committee. It is not hard to imagine a situation  where dozens or scores of candidates  are involved. We need to articulate a rule of  law that can extend a little further.  I want to give you a chance to comment  on that tension.  

Sure. I appreciate that. It's  one of those things that you say, then regretted as  soon as you say it.  It is very much from living in Senate world and being the DSCC's  lawyer.  When  you commission a research book,  there are things you are interested  in that you have found and think  are good policy topics or whatever  it is. There is a  lot of value in that. You want to  get in the hands to primary candidates to benefit  them. You don't want it getting  around beyond that. Once they start  circulating around  17 candidates, it is basically on  public domain at that point. I do think it speaks to the valuation  decreasing as more people get their  hands on an asset. The reason I said that was because  in the context of the DSCC, it is  something that is so it's ordinary  and unlikely. It is not going to  happen , given the political environment.  I take your point that other committees  might be divinely situated . If your research book is being  disseminated so widely to that many  individuals, I do think the value  has gone down at this point.  

The other edge of the sword but  I ask you about is the decision. You are entitled  to structure this however you wish , but the legal ambiguity came in,  because the  decision not to structure this as  a joint purchase. That is where the question was  very fairly asked.  Once you decide to structure it  the way this request is structured,  it is possible to imagine the committees  not getting a nonexclusive license. I  think that is at the center of the  thing we are struggling with here.  I'm not sure that I have a good  answer from your client as to how  we are supposed to deal with that  problem.  

That is very fair.  Why should the valuation be different if two committees -- why should it be improper  to split the cost between the number  of recipients under my scenario  versus if the DSCC buys it today.  Why  should the law value that book differently  in that context? 
     >> Ms. Lopez, would your client be able to give  us an extension of time to work  on this? I'm  not saying that this may not be  the final answer that you get, because I think  there is a lot of support for what  is in this draft. I  think you have raised some questions  that I would like to take a look  at. I'm not entirely certain that  we are not making that there are -- [ Indiscernible ] .  

I very appreciate the questions  and the seriousness with which it's  being treated. I am happy to give  you more time.  

Thank you.  I would request that we hold this  over to the next open meeting.  

Thank you, Commissioner. 
     >> 
     Could we make an extension until we have time after  that date to get the final draft out, signed and everything? 
     >> A three  week extension, Ms. Lopez --  if he could give us that.  

That sounds good.  

Thank you, council.  Sorry to give you more late-night  work.  

I don't mind at all. I appreciate  the effort.  

This matter will be visited the  next open meeting. The remaining matters are held  over. Are there any management or  administrative matters requiring  the commission's attention?  

There are none.  

We are adjourned. [ Event  Concluded ]