This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on May 24, 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. The open meeting for Thursday, May 24 is in session. Good morning and congratulations to the caps -- Cavaliers. We have any fans? Good game. Are there any questions, Madame Vice Chair? 

>> There are. I moved that the commission add to the agenda consideration the adoption of Forty Year Report and pursuant to [ Indiscernible ] that business was possible and a further move to suspend the rules on the timely submission of agenda documents in order that the commission [ Indiscernible ]. 

>> Support the motion to put the Forty Year Report on the agenda as long as it's the last time. All those in favor? Motion passes unanimously. Is there a motion regarding the minutes? 

>> Yes. I move approval of the minutes as set forth in agenda documents 18 dash 24 a and 18 dash 20 5A and that is for the open meeting of Wednesday, March 14, 2018. 

>> Thank you. All those in favor. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. The next on the agenda is Draft Advisory Opinion number 2018, Mace. I see we have Mr. Bakker with us. Thank you for coming. 

>> Thank you. 

>> We have an opening presentation this morning. 

>> Good morning. Thank you Chair Hunter and commissioners. For your our agenda documents 18 dash 28 A and be responding to a request from South Carolina state representative Nancy Mace. She asked several questions about the application and commission regulations to the requester's proposal to establish maintain and control or not connected federal independent next editor only political Committee to make public communications promoting supporting attacking or opposing clearly identified federal candidates. Both drafts conclude the proposed Committee would be acting as representative  mesas agent and making the public communications described in the address. Address further conclude that because Representative Mace is a state officeholder in Canada she and her agents including the proposed [ Indiscernible ] may not use nonfederal funds to pay for public communications promoting, supporting attacking or supporting clearly identified federal candidates. We did not receive comments on either draft and I would be a be to address any questions. 

>> Ink you very much. 

>> -- Thank you very much. There are two drafts in the second one was late yesterday but it comes to the same conclusion. Were you able to review both of them? 

>> Yes, I was. That's allowed. 

>> Does anybody have any questions? 

>> Mr. Bakker do you have any questions? 

>> I would like to point out that a quick Google search last night found that according to the U.S. Census Bureau there are 511,000 state and local elected officials in this country. If we assume that is town Council members, school board, drain commissioners -- all manner of officers including state legislators like Representative Mace, if we assume that between primaries and general elections everyone has an electro -- electoral opponent that's over 1 million -- American citizens that will be denied and not be able to engage in otherwise lawful activities and I think that's highly problematic and it rests on a misunderstanding of McConnell as a criminal -- controlling opinion but I think SpeechNow is the more apt controlling opinion in this case because McConnell did not address the matter from the perspective -- they didn't have super PACs when that was decided and they were not looking at this creature. It didn't exist and they were talking about something different and they were using a standard of corruption that was expressly overruled in both Citizens United and McCutcheon to reach that conclusion. We would urge the commission reconsider the drafts. 

>> Thank you. Commissioner Petersen? 

>> Thank you, Madam chair. I take your arguments and I understand it .  As a Commissioner  I feel -- in the SpeechNow case while there are -- is language and that could be a president to attack this provision, it is -- its constitutionality in court, through the advisory opinion process I feel as a Commissioner  we don't necessarily have a latitude to declare a provision unconstitutional that has -- wasn't addressed in the SpeechNow case so regardless of my personal sympathies, I think and my official role the analysis I believe in these drafts is a straightforward take on what the legal requirements are. I think under our current starch to reframe work, it reaches the right conclusion -- statutory framework, it reaches the right conclusion but through the courts they will find your argument is persuasive and there are precedents that can be marshaled in their favor. But like I said, under a straightforward reading of the law that hasn't been challenged, I feel I'm bound to apply that in this particular case. 

>> Thank you. I agree with everything Commissioner Petersen said.  I have the exact same opinion. Anybody else? Madame Vice Chair? 

>> Thank you Madam Chair. Conduct is not lawful when Congress makes it unlawful. I think the drafts are both legally sound. I can support either one. I'm not sure what the role of the commission is on this. 

>> Commissioner Walther? 

>>  I'm interested in how SpeechNow might have affected or [ Indiscernible ]. 

>> I wouldn't say it overruled McConnell. I don't think it reaches this -- the facts and laws applied here. I think because Super PACs didn't exist in time and the ones used in McConnell are the same ones overruled in Citizens United and the new model of corruption of actual and apparent prequel corruption was confirmed and McCutcheon. McConnell doesn't control here and that SpeechNow does. SpeechNow holds that contributions to Super PACs as a matter of law cannot corrupt federal officeholders and therefore may not be limited. There's nothing in SpeechNow or its reasoning to suggest contributions to Super PACs may be more corrupting if the Super PACs are related to state and local officeholders. 

>> [ Indiscernible - Muffled Audio ] 

>> I don't know that that would necessarily be beneficial or helpful given what seems to be the consensus of the Commission.  

>> Vice Chair? 

>> I believe Mr. Bakker wants to brief it in a different form. 

>> Any other comments? I think Madame Vice Chair your question was which one, I think the second one which is draft B 18 - 28  - be  is the one we prefer. 

>> As I said I think both of the drafts are fine. If you would prefer I'm happy to move Draft B and see if it gets for votes. -- Four votes. With respect to the advisory opinion request 2018 - 07  Mace I approve approval of Draft B as document 18-28-B. 

>> Thank you. 

>>  Is this the one that was handed out this morning? 

>> It was circulated last night or yesterday. 

>> It was circulated yesterday and made public later yesterday. 

>> I'd like to have some time to look at it. 

>> Okay. Steve, are you prepared to vote for the other draft? 

>> Yes. 

>> Okay. Mr. Bakker's you have a preference? Would you prefer to wait for Draft B or get your answer on Draft A? 

>> I think they reach the same conclusion regardless, so I would hate to further stall the work of Commission.  

>> Madame Vice Chair? 

>> I withdraw my motion. I'm going to try a different one. I think they really are basically very similar. One is a little shorter. Having withdrawn my previous motion, with respect to the advisory opinion request from state representative Mace, I move approval of draft a as set forth in Agenda Document 18-28-A.  

>> Thank you. All those in favor. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you for coming, Mr. Bakker. 

>> Thank you. 

>> Next matter on the agenda is rulemaking proposal Agenda Document 18 - 26 -  A. Madame Vice Chair. 

>> Thank you. A few days ago the Senate select Committee on intelligence released a joint statement . Senators Burr and Warner about foreign interference in past and future U.S. elections. They were pretty clear about what they thought about it and what they thought might happen and they impressively spoke with a single voice. Senator Burr wrote there is no doubt that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere with our 2016 elections. Senator Warner added while our Committee's investigation remains ongoing one thing is already abundantly clear , we have to do a better job in the future if we want to protect our elections from foreign interference. I was inspired by that statement because there's been a lot of -- like everything else in this town, there's been a lot of disagreement. People not working together and here are some serious people who are confronting a serious problem and trying to do it on a consensus basis. And on a fact-based basis. I appreciated that and I thought that's really the way Washington should work. I thought I would take another run at this because I share their concern that foreign actors have intervened in our past elections and it appears intent to intervene again. Dan coats, the Director of national intelligence, in February told us told -- told the Senate intelligence Committee  that there's no evidence of a concerted effort on the part of for Nash -- there's really no reason to assume it would only be the Russians. Other folks are watching what happened and watching what will happen in the future and we don't know what's going to happen in 2018, but a lot of people are concerned about it and I'm one of them. We have had new information since the last time we talked about this year in addition to the recent statement from Senators Burr and Warner. There was an indictment issued in February that indicted 13 Russians and three Russian entities for engaging in a conspiracy to defeat the lawful government functions of the United States by dishonest means in order to interfere with U.S. political and electoral processes including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The alleged conspiracy had a budget of more than $1.2 million per month at its peak. The indictment specifically named provisions of the FECA as part of the laws  that were targeted and violated. That's a lot of money. I think the last time we talked about this there was the information that we had was based on what basic -- Facebook had released and it looks like a small a bunch -- bunch of small advise and not serious money but I think we know now that serious money is being spent on this effort. I've seen numerous reports in the newspaper of alleging foreigners using various nondisclosing groups to try and spend money in our elections. There's a Chinese state owned chemical company that joined -- the [ name unknown ] chemical group which is a $10 million that joined the American chemistry Council in February which during previous cycles have spent millions of dollars in dark money on our elections. We have a variety of complaints but I'm not going to talk about them. We are receiving information through a variety of public and private sources that indicate we should be seriously concerned about people trying to influence the elections and in 2018 and spending serious money to do it. Open secrets recently came out with a new study in conjunction with the Wesleyan media group that reported that TV ad buys are up nearly 90% for the 2018 elections and I should say this includes state and federal ad buys but dark money groups are behind two out of three ads purchased by these outside groups. As consistent with a trend, there's a lot of money being spent out there and a lot of money being spent by dark money groups and we have reason to think that they are foreign actors looking for every single avenue to try to influence our election. Dick Cheney said in March 2017 that Russia's alleged actions could be considered an act of war against the United States. This is not something that only one side is concerned about. There is bipartisan concern about this very serious issue. Yes, we have an enforcement process to deal with complaints about what happened in 2016, but that is looking retroactively and that's important but what I'm concerned about even more so is what happens next. What happens in the elections coming up? I suppose some people might argue it's already too late to try to do anything for 2018. I would remind my colleagues that in 2002 the Congress passed the bipartisan campaign Reform Act and put very tight timelines on rulemaking under that act and the original soft money roles were given a 90 day deadline for putting the rules out and the Commission , which none of us were serving on at the time but our predecessors under the leadership of Dave Mason, Brad Smith, Scott Thomas and Carl Sandstrom. They rolled up their sleeves and said we have 90 days to get a difficult rulemaking done and we're going to do it and they did do it. If we were to roll up our sleeves similarly today, in 90 days we could be Labor Day and get a rule out. They had to work long nights to do it. I think there were hearings that lasted until midnight back then and nobody likes to sign up for that kind of enterprise, but I think this is important enough if preventing officeholders and candidates from raising soft money was important enough to put in that kind of an effort, I think preventing foreigners from spending money on elections is equally, if not more important, and deserves the same kind of effort from the Commission. I know  it is an imposition on our staff, but I have every confidence that they too would be willing to roll up their sleeves for this important endeavor and help us try to do it. I think that we really should -- would it be better if we had already done something, yes. That is not too late to act now, it's not too late to try and put some more backstops into place before the 2018 election. I'm very much concerned that if we do nothing we are just leaving the door open and there are plenty of people out there who do not have the best interest of the United States at heart who will be all too willing to walk through the doors that we leave open for them. We have a lot of ways that we can address this. I held a forum on this issue a while back and we had a lot of really smart people that came up with a lot of good ideas. My colleagues have come up with some ideas and I think ideally we would put all of those ideas together in a package, put them out for public comment, we would have to schedule relatively tight, deadlines and hearing deadlines, but again I think we can do it and we should do it and I hope there would be interest in doing it. I'm not trying to land on any particular result but I think we really need to do more to shore up our defenses against foreign spending in our elections. I can try to do that through a variety of motions to see if any of them will stick but I hope there will be interest on the Commission in addressing this issue  and addressing it now. 

>> Mr. Peterson? 

>> Thank you Madam Chair. Certainly this issue of foreign interference in American elections is one I think we all take seriously and the legitimacy of our democracy and the integrity of the process by which we elect a president, Congress goes a long ways towards perceptions about the religious me -- legitimacy of elections. This is an issue we all take seriously and I think we have done so in terms of the way we've handle our enforcement agenda and I think as we have approached this issue, I think there has been -- we have bipartisan breakthroughs. The issue that I believe produced the most evidence is the use of Facebook ads and other internet communications there have been indictments brought against foreign individuals and companies that have been alleged to have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act and the four national prohibition contained in that act. We do have a rulemaking underway to address that specific issue and we will have a hearing next month on that issue and I feel optimistic that we will be able to move forward and find a path forward on that issue. I read the statement from the Senate intelligence Committee  and you referenced some of it. The one thing that stood out to me in addition to the strong statements that were mentioned by Senator Burr and Senator Warner, was that the inquiry continues on. There is work that is still left to do. Senator Burr I said -- that I look forward to issuing our findings and recommendations to the American people. I will quote another statement that the Vice Chair also mentioned was that he said while our Committee's investigation remains ongoing one thing  is already abundantly clear we have to do a better job in the future if we want to protect our elections from foreign interference. It sounds like the inquiry is still going on and there are going to be findings issued by the Committee . And I think I look forward to seeing what those findings are to see to what extent the efforts to interfere involve matters within our jurisdiction. The matter of Facebook ads and any express advocacy activities clearly fall within our jurisdiction. Our current prohibition on foreign nationals making contributions, donations or expenditures in connection with federal elections. As I said before when this issue came up it is very broad and robust. Obviously broad and robust enough for the special counsel to bring 13 indictments. From what I have -- understand from the Vice Chair's past rulemaking proposals, the focus of those have been more on foreign ownership of corporations, percentage of foreign ownership, board membership, whether it is a foreign government involvement. Up until this point, I have not heard of much evidence in the way of foreign actors using the corporate forum in order to potentially interfere. In fact, there has been in the for-profit corporate world -- there hasn't been much evidence that domestic corporations of any kind have been heavily involved in flooded coal -- political activities. There have been interesting articles and studies taken for many corporations it's just not a good bet. That problems with customer bases and shareholders have kept many corporations from getting actively involved in political activities. It's been more of individuals up until this point. Wealthy individuals who financed a good portion of the activities of Super PACs and 501(c)(4)'s.  So like I said, I look forward to the findings the Senate intelligence Committee comes forward with  and if they bring forward evidence that changes that understanding, then I think I would have to reconsider what my past positions have been. At this point I think where the evidence is strongest has been on the internet ads and as a result I supported the internet disclaimer rulemaking and look forward to completing that soon. At this point, I await the fruits of the efforts of the intelligence Committee  and whatever information we get from the various government investigations that are going on. I don't want to say that -- if the Vice Chair is going to make a motion today I'm not going to be able to support it today, but I don't want to say that I'm shutting the door for all time and for all -- from all consideration in the future. I just think the record that we get from these committees and from these investigations, I would like to see more evidence. I think that if that is strong and specific enough that could guide us in a rulemaking that I think would be specifically targeted and would directly address the issues where foreign interference has been primarily focused. 

>> Commissioner Walther, did you have a comment? 

>>  I support, as my record shows, the desire for us to get more involved in whatever we have in the way of jurisdiction rulemaking wise, policy wise, to try to strengthen our grip on the flow of money that might be coming from outside sources. It's kind of almost blindly applied that any effort we can engage in to do that I would support Commissioner Weintraub's motion  generally as I understand it would be expressed. Yes, I think [ Indiscernible ] but it would be good for us to begin to be leaders in it rather than completely -- I don't want to say apathetic but not inclined to wait until we have some information from some governmental agencies and then try to piece together now where do we go? In fact I think we could put together some regulations and I would like to see us consider. I happen to think how we want to deal with corporate activity in the campaign finance field needs to be looked at in terms of composition and power, namely who has control of the shares and stock, who owns the shares and stock, which are voting shares and which are not voting shares and to what extent can lending be a force that really becomes a governing entity? The company become indebted so that it has to listen to the lender and do things they wouldn't otherwise have to do. We should look at all of those factors to show where the money comes from and how it gets there. So for that reason, I'm inclined to support Commissioner Weintraub's efforts. 

>>  I'd like to associate myself with the comments of Commissioner Petersen . I feel exactly the same way and I stand by the statements that we put out on the past on these issues and don't think anything has changed. I have a question for the Vice Chair. You mentioned -- I think you said the American Chemistry Council and I think you said it was from a newspaper article. Could you please tell me which newspaper article that is? 

>> I'm sorry, I don't have it with me today but I would be happy to provide it. My best collection is it was in the New York Times but I will provide that. 

>> I think we need to be extraordinarily careful about throwing out information from a newspaper article and besmirching organizations that are -- we are federal officials here at the Federal Election Committee and there's a mechanism whereby we investigate things and we have an enforcement process  and we have other processes set up and I think it's inappropriate for somebody to besmirch an organization. I don't know anything about the organization. I don't know what you are talking about but because they have a Chinese member doesn't mean they are spending Chinese money. There are already laws against foreign influence and foreign spending in elections and a lot of corporations know exactly what the law is and they are very mindful about it and I think it's clear -- completely appropriate. 

>> May I respond, Madam Chair? 

>> Sure. 

>> I did not besmirch them I nearly stated fact that -- and I will provide the documentation that the American Chemistry Council has a member which is a very large and wealthy chemical company that is controlled by the government of China. 

>> Are the the only foreign trade association that has a foreign member? 

>> I don't know but that's an interesting question. 

>> To the international unions have international members? 

>> I think these are all questions we should explore and look into. 

>> If there are groups that are spending money and it's coming from foreign sources I think we should [ Indiscernible - multiple speakers ] 

>> There are laws that cover that exact issue already. 

>> A cue for the interruption. There are laws but the question is how do those laws and how do our interpretations of those laws govern groups that spend money and get that money from other places? We have -- you have indicated in the past an interest to some degree in a negative certification process which I think I suggested something like that originally and I was pleased to see you like that part of the idea because there are a lot of groups that spend money and we don't know where the money comes from. Super PACs collect money from all sorts of places and sometimes they are individuals and sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are groups and again we don't know who is behind those groups. Sometimes it is quite a tangled what to trace back where the money comes from. We had a case, if you want to look it up it was Floridians for a strong middle class which involved allegations that a Florida developer was arranging for Chinese foreign nationals to set up real estate LLCs and trust to buy real estate property and one of the properties that this particular developer was involved with had given $50,000 to a super PAC. So we were presented with that complaint that nobody really knew where that money came from. If that particular LLC was one of the ones that was basically just a shell for a foreign owner of a real estate property and that complaint was presented to us and really all we would've needed to do was ask a single question. We just needed to ask one question. Where did the money come from? Was the money that was supplied to that LLC and was the source of the contribution, did any of it come from a foreign national? I'm sorry to say there was not a single other person at this table today that was willing to ask that question. That case was dismissed. I voted against dismissing it. I thought it would not have been a resource intensive investigation to find out the weather -- whether or not there was money coming from that and nobody cared enough to ask a question. When we talk about protections in the law, the law has to be enforced and we have to sometimes look behind the immediate donor to political organization. If my colleague is not aware of any information about foreigners potentially using those dark money groups as a venue for getting money into our system, then I guess this is just another instance of people living in their own bubbles because you are plainly not reading the same things I'm reading. I would be happy to address in a rulemaking the broad questions of corporate ownership and corporate control, but I'm honestly most concerned right now about the possibility of foreign money coming in through LLCs and (c)(4)  and other dark money groups and for the potential spending by corporations that are owned or controlled by foreign governments. And there are such corporations active in our economy today. I think that given what we have learned about the devious techniques that some foreign actors have used to try to influence our elections, I think we would be naïve to think they would never use dark money groups to funnel money into our elections. Because that would be wrong. I think there's a lot of information that we don't know and that we should find out, but I think there's already an adequate predicate for us to Act today  and if we wait for every last investigation to be concluded, we are going to be talking in 2020 about how to address -- write new regulations for the 2022 or 2024 elections based on what happened in 2016. The world will have moved on in all sorts of new activity will of been devised by then and I think we have to be willing to Act a little bit quicker  in order to try and keep up. 

>> You mentioned the law in this area. There is already existing law that a trade association if they have a foreign member they cannot be a part of the decision-making with respect to how that money is made and the trade association can't use any foreign money to participate in politics so that's already the law and with respect to you just wanted to ask one question -- some of us read the statute which doesn't give us roving abilities to ask people questions. We have to have a finding of a reason to believe before we can do an investigation and that's why we voted against it. 

>> You would've had a reasonable finding if there was for votes. 

>> Commissioner Walther?  

>> I was going to be a little defensive on that comment because I looked at that case and it's hard sometimes when you are sitting up there and you believe something and you don't have reason to believe and I don't know how to describe when it occurs but sometimes you believe it's probably what happened but you just don't have the evidence and I thought it was too skinny to go forward in that case. 

>> Commissioner Petersen? 

>> Thank you , Madam Chair. I recall that case as well and I think we spent a fair amount of time on it and we may have even talked about that offline a little bit. I believe the recommendation from the office of General Counsel was a no reason to believe recommendation on that case and I remember going through not only the reports and complaints and everything but there was a lot of information to dig in in that case. And it comes down to do we have an adequate factual basis to find reason to believe in that case? I ultimately reached the same conclusion. It wasn't on the basis of thinking this isn't a serious issue. I think we have tried to prioritize the allegations and complaints that relate to violations of the four national band and I think our record has been to take them very seriously and to pursue many of them. But on that particular case, like Commissioner Walther,  it was just looking at what evidence was presented there and whether or not it triggered the statutory threshold. And I followed counsel's recommendation on that. 

>> Madame Vice Chair. 

>> That goes to a long-standing debate over how much evidence we expect complainants to present to us or whether we should use our investigatory authority of the law to find out because the simple truth is that nobody knew then and nobody knows now who was behind that money. 

>> I'm sorry were you finished? 

>> The statute specifically says we can't do an investigation before a vote on reason to believe. It's in the statute. 

>> Of course. That's why I supported reason to believe findings so that we could do the investigation. 

>> Okay. Anything else? 

>> Just to add to that this is part of the frustration I share and sometimes when you get to a case that comes before us and all we have to do is just do one thing. We can find out one way or the other whether it's true or not, but until you have enough to go forward we are simply not able to get out and write letters or conduct interviews. It's simply what the law is and it's frustrating because sometimes it seems like it wouldn't take much to find a basic fact. We are hamstrung by the law and this is for good reason but frustrating results sometimes. 

>> Other comments? We will move on to the next matter. 

>> I would like to make a motion. Perhaps several motions. With absolutely no expectation that they will succeed, but I think there have been a lot of good ideas that have been posited before this day and I think that, as I said, my colleagues would forward a proposal for a policy statement back as far as 2011. The Commission  put forth a detailed regulatory proposal -- several commissioners put forward a detailed regulatory proposal about how in the post-Citizens United world we should deal with four national prohibition. And as a result of the hearing that I held here at the FEC, I proposed we look into issues like percentage of foreign ownership, board membership of corporations, foreign government ownership, the type of Corporation, implementation measures and I think we ought to incorporate all of those proposals. Direct counsel to take everything that's been produced so far here at the FEC and package it up into a notice of -- proposed rulemaking and present to the Commission for a vote  on a very short timeline that would allow us to consider getting out a rule within 90 days. 

>> Any discussion of the motion? 

>> Commissioner Walther?  

>> More specific what is the motion in terms of -- 

>> The motion would be to start a rulemaking, direct the office of General Counsel to collect all the proposals that have already been suggested here at the agency including some that you, yourself, proposed,  Commissioner Walther and were based on the 2011  NPRM that we voted for back in the day. The policy statement that the Republican commissioners put forward, the ideas that were suggested at the forum and summarized in my memo to the Commission of September 28, 2016,  and incorporate all of that into a draft notice of for Commission consideration  on the schedule that would allow us to get a rule out within 90 days. 

>> Once again I support what you say and wondering in terms of directing the office of General Counsel would mean gathering all the documents and making a composition of them or get the recommendations or -- there would be a massive document if we try to add on to all of them. 

>> It would be a long document but they could start with the NPRM we proposed in 2011 which is already written. The proposal that the Republican commissioners put forth also is already written. There's a lot of work that's already been done. I'm not saying it would be a quick and dirty job but they could -- that they could do over not but I -- night but I think they could do it. 

>> I'm going to ask the office of General Counsel if they have any thoughts of how emotion like that could be framed? We could give you the guidance you need to go forward? 

>> I think the motion is sufficiently clear that we could understand how to influence it. It would be a challenging undertaking. We would do our best. 

>> If you can do it. 

>> So how would you -- and if you're not prepared to answer this the Vice Chair is, how could you incorporate this proposal that we should take into account -- and this is on page 4 of the September 9, 26 -- 2006 memo. It is the third bullet. We should take into account the possibly divided loyalties of both the U.S. based companies with global assets and foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries. I can't even imagine how we would do that under our statute and how we would -- how anybody would support the government trying to decide where loyalties are. 

>> I'm sorry, which memo was that? 

>> This is the September 9, 2016 memo. 

>> I didn't refer to that in my motion. 

>> So you don't want to do that anymore? 

>> After September 9, you may recall you thought the proposals were to bag so I came back with more detailed proposals on September 28. There is a list of specific questions on pages three through five of the memorandum and I think all of those questions could just be lifted wholesale and plopped into an NPRM for public comment. 

>> I'm glad you took that part out. 

>> That was based on some of the testimony that we received at the forum. I try to listen to what your concerns are and to narrow the focus and make it more specific so that it might attract more support. 

>> Any other comments on the motion? 

>> All those in favor? The motion fails by a vote of 222, Commissioner  Walther voting in favor and Commissioner  Peterson and I voting against. 

>> I would like to try a narrower proposal. I would like to move that the Commission open rulemaking and direct the office of General Counsel  to draft a notice of -- rulemaking to address specifically the topic of preventing spending by foreign government owned or controlled corporations. As outlined in topic three of my September 28 memorandum. The topic of preventing the use of corporate conduits by foreign national to spend funds on American elections as well as a proposal that the Republican commissioners put forth involving negative certifications. I think it was not a requirement but a safe harbor for Super PACs and other groups that would require them to provide -- not require but provide a safe harbor if they provided negative certifications stating they were not using any money derived from foreign sources. I would like to narrow my proposal to those three topics and again with the direction to the office of General Counsel to prepare a notice -- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on an expedited schedule that would allow us to adopt a rule within 90 days. 

>>  Commissioner Petersen? 

>>  Thank you. Can you repeat with the second item -- the first was spending by foreign government controlled companies and the second was -- I had conduits and -- 

>> It goes to the same -- it's a broader formulation of the same topic that you raised in your policy proposal. The use of conduits by foreign nationals. Foreign nationals using other organizations be they corporate or otherwise. 

>> As I said in my earlier statement, I'm not prepared to vote for a rulemaking proposal today but I do look forward to seeing what the results are especially the Senate intelligence Committee's investigation  and any other relevant government investigations that are currently taking place to see whether or not these are identified as ways in which our election system is being undermined. Are not ready at this point, but I just want to make sure I understood the scope of the motion. 

>> I agree with Commissioner  Peterson. Any other comments? Commissioner Walther? 

>>  I think one of the things we should look at as we go forward is we do have experience in the intelligence field where foreign interests are balanced with reasonable amounts of investment but not enough to control. We might look at that and the history of it, the lessons learned and the lessons they might want to go over but at least I think it would be a good educational source for us to take a look at that because we do have governmental experience in trying to parse out foreign interests and non-foreign interests, public American interest. 

>> We received a lot of good information on that topic and examples from tax law and other areas from the experts we convened and we have a lot of information already in hand on that exact topic. 

>> Any other discussion on the motion? 

>> All those in favor. The motion fails by a vote of 2-2.  Commissioner Walther in the Vice Chair voting in favor and Commissioner Petersen and  myself voting against. Moving on. The next on the agenda is adoption of a Forty Year Report. 

>> To me this isn't a laughing matter. I put this on the agenda and it's a composite of a couple of things that I'm no longer going to support so I'm going to pull that income with a revised version. I would like to say this. I do think the idea of having what we have thought was valuable for the public, not the people that live and die election law,  but those who want to know something about the Federal election Commission . The general public, we provided a service by having a history of the origins of the Federal election Commission  for over 40 years now. We reported that for 30 years. I think we should do it again. I think especially now with the fast movement of what's going on here, what's gone on here, the public -- if the public went now to our source which is our 30 year history and that was all they had, they wouldn't have a fair or comprehensive source to rely on that would be accurate. We made efforts to try and come up with something that could work. We started with the information division who was predominantly the author of the Thirty Year Report and it was unanimously adopted by the Commission at that time. I look at it and I say I could've written  it differently or taken this out but the fact is we don't need to do that to give a good general overview to the public of what we've done and where we've been. We don't have to live and die all the ups and downs, but a general source for the public to go then forward and something we should continue to do. I'm going to go back and revamp this a little bit and come back at the next meeting if I can for consideration. 

>> Commissioner Petersen? 

>> Thank you,  Madam Chair. One thing we may want to look at enhancing that may address some of the concerns that Commissioner Walther pointed out  is back in 2015 the information division took the initiative and created a 40th anniversary timeline which is available on our website. I'd read out the whole website for you but maybe we can make it as part of the record? I will read it through and anybody who wants to look at it, it is www.fec.gov/updates/new-interactive-timeline-chronicles. You can probably look up 40th anniversary timeline on our website. The thing I like about this is for newer generations who want to find out information about any source, but about the FEC in particular, you want to go  to the website and have interactive materials and this has some -- a lot of good features including links to all of the past reports, great pictures including past commissions, video of Commissioner specifying , and I think perhaps what may be -- this was created for the 40th anniversary. We haven't updated since but perhaps we can work with the information division to have this enhanced so that on a somewhat periodic basis whether it's every quarter or half year or year we update whatever major legislative changes have happened, rulemaking's, advisory opinions, court cases, relevant appearances by commissioners if they are testifying in front of Congress and enhancing the good work that the information division is already putting forth and extending it forward. That may be a more valuable resource for those who want to know the full ins and outs of the Commission's history.  And as part of the timeline they still have access to all of the prior iterations of the relevant reports. I would put that on the table for consideration that perhaps we can work with our information division to bolster that timeline and have a system in place for regular updates and I think that would be a terrific resource again for -- since most of us now that is the way we like to get her information is through interactive displays on the internet. I invite anybody who is listening to this to take a look at that and I think finding ways to enhance that would be a useful undertaking for the Commission. 

>> Thank you.  Madame Vice Chair? 

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate Commissioner Walther's efforts . He is on this issue. We have terrific staff. I'm a big fan of our info division as I hope they know. They did what they always do. They wrote up a Forty Year Report that included virtually cut and paste descriptions of the older parts of our history from earlier decade reports the Commission had  issued and it -- adopted and put forward. If anybody wants to see what the staff draft looks like, I put it on the agenda at the last meeting of Commissioner Walther's chairmanship  on December 2017. I think doing a history of the Commission is something we can relegate tour staff  and the reason why this document has not been issued is because commissioners offices decided to get involved without -- and whip out the red pen and try to rewrite this sentence and that sentence to reflect their personal ideologies. I think personally -- I would rather spend my time doing other things. I am content with the excellent work that the staff did and as I said, if anybody wants to look forward -- for it they can find it. 

>> Any other comments? I want to point out that tomorrow is the deadline for the comment period for the internet disclaimer rulemaking and we have a hearing coming up at the end of July. End of June, sorry. I know a lot of us will be focused on that in the next few weeks and looking forward to reading the comments and we are also going to try to take those tackle the nationwide IE rulemaking soon. We still don't have a volunteer mail policy for the public and our audit staff so I think we have a lot of important things that are more relevant to the lives of the people who have to follow what we do here. 

>> Madam Chair, I would just like to end on a positive note. I share your interest and comments on the internet disclaimer rulemaking. I'm hoping we are just going to get bucket loads and I'm looking forward to reading them, as many of them as I personally can but we will have somebody reading all of them. I want to remind people that if they want to testify on the hearing on June 27 they should include that in their comment. 

>> Thank you. Esther staff Director, either any management or administrative -- 

>> Madam Chair, can I have a moment? I would like to -- I didn't warn them but I would like to introduce two of our summer interns in the internship program in the office -- Office of General Counsel. With us today is Jedediah Blake and Abby Taylor. They both just completed their first years at GW law school. Jedediah is assisting on the policy division and Abby is in the administrative law division and I wanted to welcome them to the Commission  and put them on the spot. 

>> How are you doing? Welcome. Thank you, Ms. Stephenson? 

>> There are no such matters. This meeting is adjourned. [ Event Concluded ]