This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on October 29, 2015.  This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.

<DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, CAPTIONING FOR THIS MEETING DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES AFTER THE START OF THE MEETING>

>> Any comments or questions? All those in favor please indicate by saying aye. Madame secretary, that motion passes unanimously. We are next going to item three. The pledge is Mr. Zolt on the phone? 
>> On the phone. 
>> Thank you, Mr. Zolt. Welcome Mr. Zolt. 
>> And I enjoyed watching the web page demonstration. 
>> It's going to be great, isn't it? All right. We also have with us Theo to discuss the matter and Mr. Zolt with Amy. Is there a staff presentation? Thank you. 
>> Good morning commissioners. In 51 A, B, and C include three draft responses. 
>> I think he might need to put it closer. 
>> Three pledges of for-profit corporation. It proposes to establish a platform to designate a charity to receive the funds if it's matched by the supporters of the opposing candidate. All the drafts include that it's permissible under the act. If the commission approves the draft we will pas pass the child support -- pass the authority to make changes. 
>> Any questions. 
>> Yes, in an attempt to draw some agreement to the middle, there was a new draft seen that was issued belatedly this morning. Can you draw the principle initials between draft B and draft C. Draft C was drawn to draft B and have you had an opportunity? 
>> Very quick cursory. 
>> It's somewhat unfair of me given the late arrival of draft C. It's my understanding that there's not a significant difference between B and C. 
>> I hesitate to characterize the differences as significant although I do believe the draft does try to reach some middle ground in a language A and B. 
>> Then I guess let me start off with draft C was drafted to draft B which -- in our last meeting madame chair, draft B was the draft that you had supported. 
>> Correct. 
>> In an effort to meet a middle ground, we have abandoned draft A for purposes of trying to compromise and our staff proposed to your staff draft C yesterday and I apologize. You and I haven't had a chance to discuss it. Is there a disagreement on some -- aspects of draft C. 
>> Yes, there is a slight disagreement and let me first indicate I really appreciate having the conversations that were had between our staffs and we made an attempt to come a little closer. My concerns that I expressed at the beginning of this matter was that we're making an exception here for the ban on corporate contributions which I think is a serious issue. But in deference to repledge, I am willing to extend it with respect to that exception, with respect to precisely what repledge is suggesting that they will do. In that the language in your draft is broader than what they themselves are proposing so if you are willing to nail it to just the circumstances that relate to what Mr. Zolt is proposing here I think we can reach agreement. 
>> Can you identify -- my sense was that it was probably a paragraph or two and maybe a couple of sentences in those paragraphs. So where are those points that you believe we've strayed from? 
>> Well I think for one thing, in -- this is looking at my right draft B. On page fourteen -- 
>> Bear with me. 
>> Lines ten and eleven. That has been removed. Okay. On which ones? Here. Okay, all right, back up. We're on page nine. I don't have -- I didn't have your draft in front of me. I'm sorry. I had an older one. It's on page nine. 
>> A draft? 
>> Of -- draft -- the compromise that you had sent. Draft C. On page nine. And it's line 16 through -- we're on your draft right draft C. It's the paragraph with the issues that you lined out starting on the line 16 and I can read the sentences if you wish. 
>> Please do. 
>> It's limited subset of a -- this is what you've lined out set of opposing candidates with pledges to one effectively cancelling out pledges to the other and then going down to line 19, selecting its candidate recipients to influence the outcome of the election and line 22 and without any preferential placement or treatment and those are the factors that I believe are important to limit this to what Mr. Zolt is proposing in repledge that will more narrow that exception without them, it opens it up to broader possibilities that I'm not prepared to do at this moment with regard to the AO. So if you are able to accept those changes -- 
>> Let me be cheer on what they are. In the sentence that begins although -- we pledges members will use its website to contribute to -- 
>> To a limited subset of -- candidates. 
>> Set of -- opposing candidate. Right. A set of opposing candidates. 
>> I'm sorry, I don't see the word opposing. Oh, I see -- 
>> That's what I want to go back in. 
>> Bear with me. So repledges members will use its website to contribute only to this selection. 
>> No, no, you can keep the first -- yes, only to -- 
>> Which article do we want in this, a, the? 
>> Okay. Okay. 
>> All right. Sorry. It was -- it's the whole paragraph that you removed that we have in in draft B in this particular graph. Although pledges members will use this website to contribute to only major party nominees in the 2016 presidential election this selection of a set of opposing candidates with -- to -- with pledges to one effectively cancelling out pledges to the other. This is out. Okay. Sorry -- 
>> There's a dash. So that was a clause, yes. 
>> This does not raise concerns that repledge is selecting its candidate recipient to influence the outcome of the election. Period. And then as long as pledges solicits pledges and submits funds to opposing candidates requested by members -- no, on identical terms and without any preferential placement or treatment, otherwise, operates -- no -- or treatment. Or treatment. Period. And then at the end of the paragraph, you don't have this? Okay. You don't have this document? They don't -- okay. Oh, okay, my fellow commissioners do not have copies of your draft. 
>> The secretary passed out a blue draft. 
>> So maybe we should take -- Mr. Zolt, what's your timing like. 
>> I have about twenty minutes left. 
>> You still have twenty minutes? 
>> Mr. Zolt, you're teaching a class. So he has to depart and they haven't had an opportunity to look at this document. 
>> Will Mr. Zolt be available later today. 
>> What is the timeframe? 
>> Is there anytime after your class perhaps that -- and we could try to do it at a time soon. 
>> I'm at home now. I'm driving to school. I'll get there in about an hour or 45 minutes. 
>> Because it's LA. 
>> Which is true. And I can call the staff when I arrive. 
>> Approximately what time, just so we have a time certain. 
>> It's 11 o'clock here now so -- 
>> So it should be about noon. 
>> About noon our time? Does that make -- 
>> Why don't we take this back up at noon. 


>> Can we take it back up and make sure everybody has a copy and we can take a few minutes so people can review it. Thank you very much for your patience, Mr. Zolt. I really appreciate it. 
>> Okay, I'll give you a call around noon o'clock your time. 
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. So we will move to the next item on the agenda. It's it's item four. Senate majority pack and House majority pack. Today we have me VINs. Is me VIN -- he's not here. I don't see him. Theo will you tell us and Amy Rothstein to discuss the matter and we also have Mark allow I can't say. Welcome. And Jonathan BER KUND and Rachel Jacobs. If you'd like you can pull up a chair. Whatever your preference is here. Thank you very much for being here. 

>> Thank you. I've been told the use the mic. 
>> Is there a presentation from staff? Thank you. Mr. LUTS. 
>> Thank you. The general documents 15, 57A, 57B are draft responses about the majority PAC. These are otherwise known as super PACs who support democratic houses in senate. They ask twelve questions about their proposed activities. Both drafts conclude that some of the proposed activities would be permissible under the act and others would be impermissible out of the act. Draft B includes that the commission is able to answer questions eleven and twelve at the time that the meeting began the commissioner received five comments on the AOR in the draft if the commission approves a draft we ask them to make the changes. 

>> Thank you. Are there any questions of either council or Mr. Elias? Any discussion? Any discussion? 
>> I'll start off with the question that I have on my mind. 
>> Please. 
>> By it's a legal question, it's not so much about the request but since you're the requester. 
>> I'm a lawyer. 
>> A lawyer for the requester. One of the issues knocking around all these questions is before an individual becomes a candidate, and the meets and bounds of this jurisdiction to regulate at all and the fact that to expend the waters are extra statutory. They are created by legislation so I guess I would like your studied opinion as a practitioner in this field for a long time that I know has given a lot of thought to this when you look at go PAC when you look at machinist league when you look at the draft Kennedy cases all of those court decisions say that prior to being a candidate this commission doesn't have jurisdiction over the individual. Now by regulation we've asserted some retroactive jurisdiction for testing the watters and we only assert that jurisdiction if you become a candidate later. If you don't, you don't have to don't those testing the water expenditures. Your questions now one of your questions ask about the triggering of candidacy. That's a little bit different. But for all these activities before someone becomes a candidate what are the meets and bounds of our jurisdiction? 
>> So first I would just make a slight correction. There are a number of questions that I think we ask that don't trigger -- don't rest on precandidacy. We ask a question about the definition of an event. We ask a question about the scope of agency. Both of which don't have anything to do with triggering candidacy. We ask questions about activity by a super PAC when there is a candidate and the kinds of activity they engage in. I don't want people who have not read all of the various drafts to think that -- 
>> Many of your questions do implicate this question. So I ask to those to help me think through the meets and bounds. 
>> Yeah, I didn't mean that as anything other than a clarification to think the request is just on those questions so to answer your question directly I would say two things. The first is that, for purposes of the advisory opinion request, and the advisory opinion process I don't think I am -- I don't think this process does anything other than operates within the regulations lawfully pop gaited by the commission. I'm going to answer questions regarding my thoughts but I think procedurally the commission is an activated regulation. That regulation I don't believe has ever been challenged in court. And an advisory opinion is not the process by which one would challenge that regulation. So I think in some sense, the scope of your jurisdiction in the advisory opinion context is the application of the statute and the regulations and what if they are not harmonious and I'm looking at commissioner hunter because we had a similar discussion way back when on a recount advisory opinion where I think and I don't want to characterize your position. You asked a similar question of does the statute -- isn't all of this exempt and isn't -- strength rules that you're asking for under this AO essentially -- aren't you -- isn't the agency asserting a jurisdiction in something that in fact the agency has no jurisdiction. I'll give you a similar first answer. That may or may not be true but in the advisory context I'm here with the regulations and statutes I have and asking an advisory opinion. So those two long preambles to your question, I have not given an enormous amount of thought to this question because I think that the question of what you do with conduct that is testing the watters and how you regulate or don't regulate or testing the waters activities is a distinct question from what do you do with activity that is, in fact, candidacy activity that is simply done before people file paperwork. So in other words the fact that you have not declared candidacy doesn't mean you're testing the waters. And the fact that -- so what would you do if you had a campaign -- or not a campaign, you had a person who was genuinely uncertain as to whether to run and wanted to take a poll or do some preliminary testing the waters activities and what if, for example, use these corporate resources to do it and they made the political outreach calls out of their corporate office. I think, presents once set of questions. I think it is a different set of questions if that person has decided they are going to run for office. They simply don't yet want to have triggered the requirements. So they don't declare candidacy. I think that's one distinction. The second distinction is I think at the heart of this request in some questions is not whether the activity was lawful. Now, this is not -- some questions do go to the lawfulness and activity precandidacy as we propose engaging it with perspective potential candidates. But part of what house majority PAC is if we engage with activity with people who are not candidates but we essentially go to them and say you are not yet a candidate or not made a final decision as to whether to run but as an insurance policy if you want to run why don't we shoot footage now of the issues you want to run on. You may still not be a candidate but you are providing us a vault of information and footage and other things that would allow us to more effectively run expenditure of you. I think that's within the jurisdiction of the act now whether or not the advisory opinion comes one way or the other I think it is up to commission whether that activity is going to take place as a candidate is covered by 109.21. So I don't know if that answers your question. 
>> Yes, commissioner. 
>> If I am considering running for office and I come to you, a super PAC because in testing the waters of course I'm looking for support. Right? I'm going to any number of interest groups saying, if I thought I had sufficient support it might tip my decision to decide to run and you're one of those would I have your support but I'm testing the waters. Okay? And we agree that while I'm here I will film a few issue spots on my -- what my beliefs are about various issues. If I decide to run in the future, if I become a candidate in the future, you could use that as you may choose, okay? And then I never become a candidate. I decide against becoming a candidate. Okay? At that point, it's clear nothing, it's like a tree falling in a forest that no one ever heard. It's insignificant in the future. Your suggestion that if I become a candidate later on, the legal significance springs into existence almost retroactively and then that's my question is, how do I bootstrap or assert jurisdiction retroactively over material or activity that I had very little jurisdiction over or none. 
>> Right. 
>> Given decision not to run. 
>> So, first of all, I'm here seeking -- I'm here seeking an advisory opinion so you all tell me. You all tell me whether it is or is not lawful to do that. That's actually what I'm asking if I knew the answer to that. 
>> I'm asking for your legal views as a long run practitioner. 
>> I want to say if you run for the house or senate I would be happy to run for you. It would be an expansion of my practice but one I would take on eager ly. I think you're framing it as a question under the jurisdiction for candidacy and testing the waters. And I view it as a question. And it is a question of the application of 109.21, the coordination, the conduct something -- a conduct prong. Whether the conduct prong can be triggered for activity that took place before one was a candidate. That's really if you -- so it's not about -- it's really not a -- were they testing the waters at that time, were they not testing the waters at that time. If you have coordination precandidacy, is that then -- does that implicate the 109.21 conduct test and I think it's an interesting question. And I think it's one worth asking which my house majority PAC and senate majority PAC because there's a lot of House and Senate races for which this is a very live issue. I realize there's undoubtedly, because I read the newspaper, there is undoubtedly people that find this an interesting question at other levels but in the House or Senate where campaigns are not that set, there are candidates still considering getting into races and House majority PAC and Senate majority PAC freed to do this stand in a very important place I think these are the larger spender cycle. If there is no lookback to that whether it's testing the waters or not. That's an important thing for us to know. 
>> Thank you. 
>> Commissioner wine TRAUB, try to whisper. 
>> I'll listen very carefully. 
>> This is actually directed towards my colleague. 
>> Oh, good. 
>> I believe your premise is wrong. The testing the waters regulations do not extend the statute retroactively backwards where time or place where we otherwise wouldn't have jurisdiction. The testing the waters regulation is an exemption to what would otherwise be absolutely considered under the statute to be candidate activities the commission decided many years ago that it would allow candidates a little bit of opportunity to do a little traveling, to test their message, to see if they could raise money for a viable candidacy and what the commission did was create this exemption and it says quite clearly first words is general exemption and while you're in this testing the waters phase before you decide to become a candidate, the commission is not going to require you to file reports. But you have to track all of your contributions and expenditures because should you decide to become a candidate at that point all of those contributions and expenditures will need to be reported so the regulation doesn't read the statute backwards. The regulation provides a temporary exemption from reporting requirements for activity that is otherwise required. 
>> If I can just, I'm sorry -- 
>> Please. 
>> I wanted to amplify one thing. The other question I mentioned I mentioned the one on coordination question. The other one is the soft money question is to whether or not the -- if you have a circumstance where a precandidacy, again, setting aside the question of testing the waters or not. If you have precandidacy, a -- which is why, by the way we refer to them as a perspective candidate, right? Because this is someone who may be a candidate. If they participate in the formation of a super PAC, does that implicate the soft money prohibitions with respect to raising and spending money by that entity later? You know, that I don't think, again, has been addressed by the commission before. You know, I asked a different question that was sort of in the same space but didn't answer this question. With respect to Aaron B. in an AO that was pointing at commission Walter only because he was from Nevada and because she was. Not for any other reason. Which had to do with whether someone who founded a 527 and ran for Congress could be of that relationship but if you have someone who forms or is involved in the establishment of a super PAC what implication does that have for the super PACs for the raising and spending of money. Does it trigger any part of the part 300 restrictions and, again, these are novel questions and they are questions that I think are very much alive right now in the House and Senate and I think they are alive in the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle so to speak. And, you know, we came to the FEC because we think they're important for the FEC resolve. 
>> Anything else. 
>> I want to construct this with Mr. Elias. We can discuss the assumption that you have jurisdiction to begin with over non candidates or to then have the government grant them an XEFRMGS some governments grant that first step analysis but you have to assume jurisdiction for instance over a non candidate to then define the testing the waters as an exemption. It's a bit of an existential question. 
>> It goes to the question of what is a candidate and what defines a candidate. During the testing waters phase if in one is spending money they wouldn't fall under the testing the waters exemption. If someone is walking around the neighborhood saying do you think you could support me if I ran for Congress. That doesn't fall under anything because they're not raising or spending money and that is what triggers our jurisdiction once they start raising and spending money. What the testing the waters does is provides space for those who are raising and spending money before they have to start reporting so that they can gauge whether they think their candidacy would have a chance and whether they would want to go all in on this but it's all about the money. 
>> Not all. This is a two prong test. You have to seek election. If you haven't met the first part you're not fixes for candidacy. If you're not going to run you haven't met the first prong and there's all these objective standards we have on whether one has manifested the intent to run but we don't need to resolve that here today. I don't want to take up too much time. 
>> Any other questions? Commissioner Hunter. 
>> Thank you, madame chair, it's my understanding that we're not going to be voting on this matter today but I had a question, at this point there are two drafts public as you well know and I was wondering if you had an opportunity, Mr. Elias if you had any comments or questions on those. 
>> I did have an opportunity to review them. And, you know -- 
>> And of course mine was the best? 
>> What? 
>> Nothing. 
>> I don't know -- I years ago I made a mistake of commenting on a particular draft with a particular commission that didn't serve me well so I don't do that anymore. I will assume all six of you drafted both of them I think that the two drafts are as I read them and I actually did a compare document, are substantially the same with respect to the first first nine or ten 
>> Ten. 
>> The last two questions that go to the agency and the event are different. I would say that -- I will start with the last two questions. Those are the differences. If we have consensus among the commissioners you will have done yourself and the American public a great service but focusing on the last two questions first, the -- I think that on the agency question it is not useful or constructive to -- that's me. It's not useful or constructive to say that we can't know without a rule making. Truth is I have a right as an advisory opinion under the rules that we have. In some sense it is a little bit of the same answer I gave commissioner goodman telling me that the world should be -- the FCC's rules should be other as they are and I should seek an AO after you've done a rule making is telling me that I don't have a statutory right to an AO which I do. So don't agree with the agency answer in draft B. I think draft B. We are going to answer because citizens united came along and maybe the rules are different. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I'm not sure why citizens united will affect the FCC the definition of agency but maybe it made it more permissive or restrictive. The rule making was not a Qume buy ya moment. Many people including several of my clients sought a version of agency that was more permissive than the one that the FCC rested at. There were others who sought one that was more restricted and unless and until that rule is changed which I mention that only because it strikes me as impossible that the six of you are going to find a place to move agency in light of all the history and time that 
was spent coming up with a compromise, telling me that I don't get an answer because there hasn't -- there needs to be a post citizen united rule making. I think that's practically and legally wrong. I think I have the right under these regulations. I think the draft Aing -- A gets the right answer. The commission has accepted a multiple hats theory for chiefs of candidates who are chiefs of staff in congressional offices. It has engain grained the multiple hats theory and to say maybe we don't actually mean that is WROVENLTH wrong -- you telling me the current precedent is not precedent. I hope the commission can come to four votes on that. On the last question on the size of the event my main disagreement with draft B is it doesn't answer the question. The question we asked is is there a minimum number of people. And the answer we get in draft A is no, there isn't. B is two is too few. Well that's great. I understand two is too few. That wasn't my question. Should I walk away with that believing that the answer for draft B is three. What we asked is numerosity a factor. If so is there a minimal number. Draft A says no. There's no minimum number. Okay. Got it. We look at other edition and it's not based on five people or four people or two people. Draft A, you know, again, draft B says well two is too few but that actually wasn't the question. We mentioned two, three, four, five as an inducement to tell us that if numerosity matters if there's a minimum number and you tell me two is not enough I walk away thinking the answer is three so I think draft A is in balance -- is on balance better than draft B. With respect to the other questions I don't want see the difference between them. 
>> Well you just made the mistake. Let me say with respect I take your point on the question relating to the number and I think that's of course there is no clarity in the law with respect to that and it's like the answers in some of the other responses which is you have to sort of look at it dependent on the circumstances but I take your point about, you know, the need for a little more clarity with respect to that. With regard to the other question about super PAC the ability of agencies to do funding for their own candidate. That is not addressed in the law. We do not have a rule making with respect to that issue about the scope of fundraising for super PACS and so it seems to me that this comes squarely within what both the act and the regulations require which is that the commission can't propose rules any new rules in an AO. It's quite clear it has to be done through the rule making process if there are no rules that are applicable such as the case in this instance and, you know, I understand your frustration with respect to that problem. But we too RAUCH using the AO process as if it's a rule making which is inappropriate. The process should respond to the questions, yes, but only with regard to matters of law that we can make determinations about based on what the existing law is. 
>> May I respond? 
>> Sure, please. I am very interested in your point of view. 
>> I don't entirely disagree with you however I would note two things. One is that the advisory opinion process and this is 112.1. Any person may request in writing the application of the act. So the absence of a rule doesn't mean that the agency can't grant an AO. So to the extent we are seeking an advisory opinion under the act, I don't think it's a very useful response to say well, we haven't done rules yet because then the Congress -- then you would have said you can only seek an AO under the rules but not the act. 
>> I understand. I think in this case neither of them is directly applicable. You absolutely, counsel has indicated that your request is appropriate request for an AO. I have no quarrel with that. I think that's absolutely true and I do believe that you're entitled to the best we can do to give you the rules. In this circumstance if you look at 112.4DF and 52 USC 53B we're not permitted to use AO processes as essentially rule makings. 
>> I guess the second point that I would make is that we didn't ask the question. Maybe we could have. Maybe someone would have liked us to but we didn't ask the question whether candidates under the prior senator majority PAC AO can solicit for super PACS, asked a question about agency and the agency rules I don't think are implicated by the other. I say this humbly and with respect to all of you, but for those who ideologically favor more stricter adherence to the regulatory framework. That's not to say you're not but for those of you who tend to be more regulatory minded, sending a message that because of citizens united I no longer need to pay attention to the existing rules I would caution you. And it's why I started. I didn't -- my clients didn't support the existing agency rules. We thought they were too strict. Others thought they were too loose and if the message I walk away with is post citizens united those agency rules are just a blank slate again we will live to fight another day and we will go back to the authority and a whole bunch of things that in the comments my clients file comments on that we lost in that rule making to actual authority. I'm sorry, not a parent authority. We wanted actual -- express authority. Remember express, implied, versus actual or apparent. We will go back to saying blank slate, it's only express authority. And it's not implied authority. I think the commission in the course of this should not cast doubt on the agency rules as a whole and I think draft A does a nice job of basically saying, these are the principles of agency and the -- of the FEC agency rules and FEC agency advisory opinions and we're going to stick with them. Long answer to short question what do I think of the two drafts? Those would be my two comments. 
>> Let me just respond to that which is -- I was obviously not here for that debate and I appreciate your comments and I'll go back. Right. Thankfully I wasn't -- from what it sounds like, but I will go back and take a look at it with that in mind. I appreciate the comment. 
>> I think you're entitled to an answer to your questions. I regret that you had to come in and ask a lot of questions that I think would be better addressed through a rule making, should have been addressed through a rule making. We long ago should have done a rule making that would have addressed all your questions and wouldn't have made it necessary to come in in this context to ask these questions. I think that ever since -- pretty much ever since citizens united and the advent of super PACS I would be advocates that we ought to do a rule making on how all our rules, how the statutes apply to super PACS because the facts on the ground have changed since we did a number of rule makings notably coordination and I think we are derelict in our duty that we have never done that and I regret that I have never convinced my colleague to engage in that effort. Earlier this year I took another run at my colleagues and I said it seems to me that there is a need for clarity out there. And that we would do a service to everyone out there if we could provide some guidance on what we believe the parameters of the testing the waters regulations are and when somebody falls within that bucket and when they don't, and what they can and can't do. And I don't think there is something that is sort of a pretesting the waters phase where somebody is experimenting with being a candidate but they're not even testing the waters. That seemed to be a theory that was floated for around by I think people have backed off on that. But, again, I could not get any buy in on providing any kind of guidance on that and I think that is regrettable. The statute does not require us to do rule makings even though it's apparent that we should but it does require us to issue advisory opinions so I -- while I regret we have not answered your questions through a comprehensive rule making I agree with you that you are entitled to answers and I gather that we are not going to vote today but I will come up with something that I'm willing to support that I'll come up with by the time of the next meeting. 
>> May I inquire, if there are two drafts and they are substantially similar on the majority of the questions, the reason for not voting is what? I've been a lot of procedural posture for this table. 
>> I think the reason is because Dan sent us a letter saying we shouldn't. No -- because -- 
>> It came back. 
>> Yeah. I think my colleagues will have to respond to that. I -- I was -- are we ready to vote today? Mr. Vice chair. 
>> I think the understanding -- I think that it's been a question of why the understanding was that we wanted to schedule this meeting because we knew when our kind of our outer limit or branch of this question. I think that we -- this -- all advisory opinions are not necessarily created equal. They're entitled to the same statutory protection but this one raises a number of very interesting, complex, and not innovative but timely questions and you have -- as you have with many prior requests you present a meaty question for us to consider and I think we wanted at least one meeting. We had a bit of a gap during the middle of the month because we had a conference but we wanted to make sure there was at least one meeting where we could ask questions, one or more drafts be out there to ensure that, you know, if there are some issues that need to get teased out beforehand that we have kind of a buffer so that the next time we can kind of pit rubber to the road and answer the question definitively. That's the long and short. 
>> I understand that and I appreciate that. I didn't have the back story. So -- 
>> Yeah, I hope that provides a little bit. 
>> So I'm -- 
>> The next meeting is November 10th which is the day that -- and so we will be deciding it for certain on that day. Commissioner wine TRAUB. 
>> And just so you know just because there are two drafts now that are substantially similar on ten questions I do not believe that you should automatically assume there's consensus on the commission on those ten answers. 
>> Oh, I know that. This is not my first rodeo. I understand that drafts come up late. We could go up to F, G, H. I got that. 
>> Anything could happen. 
>> I just didn't know -- I -- in this instance, I could play out in my head different scenarios where different groups of commissioners might have drafted draft A or draft B and I just didn't know so I didn't want to presume that it was not the -- it did not reflect the full range of views of the commissioners but I understand that that -- when -- before November 10th it is impossible to know how many additional drafts will come. 
>> I personally do not know where some of my colleagues are on some of these questions so there's no way for you to know. 
>> I think the only thing that I'm taking away which is -- the questions will be answered. 
>> If there are four votes. 
>> That there will be a substantive engagement by the commission on the questions. 
>> Commissioner Walter. 
>> I'm not going to predict on that. I did want to say -- 
>> That I think we're entitled to and if -- I asked for -- I asked for a 30 day term under the emergency rules for those of you who follow me on twitter you know I was active when it took the commission ten days -- sorry the general council's office ten day to redeem the request complete without having asked a single clarifying question. Okay? If having been told it's not going to be thirty days and it's not going to be this meeting but a later meeting, at the end of this rainbow is going to be a we need a rule making, we're not answering questions or that you're not a proper requestor then I think my clients would be done a great disservice which is why I single out the rule making as an example. If the commission isn't going to engage in this then the general council's office and I could have had that out on the front end. If you weren't going to engage we could have done that in thirty days. The fact is that one way or another the courts remain an avenue to ensure that the house and senate campaigns do not go into the cycle and House and Senate super PACS don't go into the cycle without these. I understand if we don't get the four votes but if the commissioners say this is all too hard or too whatever tell me that today because it's -- because I don't actually think it'd be appropriate yet and there's other avenues to address if that's the approach. 
>> Appreciate your questions and your candor. But as commissioner Weintraub indicated, I don't believe that any one of us actually knows what the consensus or the views are of others, necessarily. So I don't think we're in a position to be able to tell you that today and totally understood from myself you know what my views are because you know that draft B is my draft. 
>> Now I do. After I said mean things about it. I now failed at this twice. Next time this comes up at a hearing I'm not saying which draft I like better. 
>> I will promise you that we will come to a conclusion on the 10th. And if there's a delay I have no way of controlling that. Thank you. Is there anything further? 
>> I wanted to say a couple things. I agree we should do a lot of things by rule making and we all have ideas on what those rules ought to be and we could work on agency again, Mark, for another year or two and try to reach consensus again and go through the ringer on that. I think it's important. I can see where the question as well we don't have a lot of the subject -- we have done enough I think to give an opinion. And I think as you know we've had some dead locks recently and in response to that some of us feel that to give a monocum of advice to the public that we would not overly question whether or not there was a hypothetical give in some of the AOs we received in the last few years. I think we've been willing to give an answer even though there was some hypothetical aspect to it so we could give input on the subject for the public. So that's my theory. 
>> Let me just be clear there is nothing hypothetical in this advisory opinion. Nothing at all. The Senate majority PAC was the second largest spender and you can look at the FEC reports on your fancy new website. It and House majority PAC are both actively engaged in elections this cycle and engaged in all the activities that are permissible. Senate majority PAC sought three advisory opinions under now three different names by the way. Starting with common sense ten then majority PAC then senate majority PAC. House majority PAC joined in the last one that dealt with members of Congress soliciting funds on their behalf and attending events. That wasn't practical. They submitted funds within federal limits and attended events within the rules of the FEC and like wise if the rules are going to change 
now not change, if the rules permit now a broader level of engagement then they have understood the case to be then they -- then that's it. They'll engage. I mean, this is not going to be a situation. We are not asking hypothetically to allow, you know, cross roads, GPS to do it. We are asking because this is -- this is large in the super PAC world. 
>> I will lay my cards on the table. I agree with that. 
>> All right. Is there anything further from the commission? Anything else you'd like to tell us Mr. Elias? 
>> You've got fourteen minutes to prepare for Mr. Zolt. 
>> Right. Thank you. Appreciate the clock. Thank you very much. 
>> I'll see you on the tenth. 
>> Thank you. So do we want to take a few minutes to take a look at this before. It's a quarter to twelve and we promise him that we will call him at noon so we will take a brief hiatus and come back at noon. Sharp. To call him. Thank you. 
>> (Break). 
>> All right we, you know, I've looked at this very carefully and I know we've been through a number of iterations of this, Mr. Zolt, and I do support your novel and unique proposal and do think it's permissible under the rules for the reasons I set forth in draft B and we did try to work together with commissioner Hunter and commissioner Peterson but, unfortunately, we're close but we haven't been able to reach agreement on some language that I think is substantive. And so while, you know, I appreciate the willingness to try to meet in the middle, I think -- I will be supporting the draft B. I know there's possibly going to be several motions here by -- but I'm going to ask commissioner Walter to do a motion that he's not going to support. 
>> After the vote I would like a moment to comment on the difference between the two drafts. I think professor, as an attorney will be able to define the difference but I would like to comment on that. 
>> Absolutely. Of course. 
>> Are we ready with the motion 201-08 repledge and reapproval of document number 15-51-V which is draft B and authorize OGC to make any necessary conforming at which hopefully we won't have to have that authorization in the future. 
>> Thank you very much. If there's no further comments, all those in favor please indicate by saying aye. 
>> Aye. 
>> All those opposed. 
>> No. 
>> No. 
>> No. 
>> All right, madame secretary that motion fails by a vote of one, being myself, to five, with commissioner Weintraub, Walter, vice chair Peterson and commissioner Hunter and goodman voting no. Is there another motion? 
>> Did you want to speak? Speak after? Okay. Thank you, madame chair. I would move in draft -- into consideration of draft advisory opinion 2015-08 repledge. With approval of agenda document number 15-51-A which is known as draft A. 
>> All right. Are there any questions? Comments? Hearing none all those in favor please indicate by saying aye. 
>> Aye. 
>> No. 
>> Madame secretary, that vote fails. That motion fails by a vote of 3 to 3 with commissioners Goodman, Hunter voting yes and the others voting no. Commissioner Good man. 
>> Professor Zolt, I want to make comments while we have you with us. There was a good faith effort to get to yes. And you should know that your fellow Californian -- the chair did try to get to yet with the three republican commissioners. However, not all is lost and although we were all able to agree on one draft, when you look at the differences between the drafts I think you're going to see a bottom line answer that there were four votes to advise legal approval for your platform and the disagreement was solely upon the legal reasoning on getting to yes and I think much of that legal reasoning was peripheral to the yes that you wanted and there was concern among commissioners about effects of the reasoning we approval. So I would encourage you to read the two drafts that garnered four votes in combination and I believe that between them you will be able to divine comfort on the legality of your proposed platform. 
>> If I could follow up on that comment because I certainly agree that the commission did agree that the proposed comment was permissible but we didn't agree on the reasoning. And I ll ask the office of general council if you would please prepare a new draft that would indicate what the basic agreed upon reasoning might be. 
>> Madame chair -- what the commission has sometimes down in these situations is approve an advisory opinion that says, simply, the commission concludes that the activity is lawful, the commission could not reach an agreement for the votes as the rational for that conclusion and we could prepare that and circulate. The deadline for this was tomorrow so we could prepare that on tally for tomorrow if the commissioners who don't agree to that are willing to object for the record only, we could do that. 
>> Mr. Vice chair. 
>> Thank you madame chair, I have some concerns on this. As commissioner Goodman pointed out I think the biggest issue here is the precedential issue. I believe repledge fits comfortably within the precedence that we established through the advisory opinion process through the platforms believing that so long as the services provided to the donor and not to the political committee and that the payment is processed in a commercially reasonable manner in accordance with reasonable standards. That is the gist of the reason that has governed our prior opinions and my concern here was not answering questions that weren't presented. We have the factual scenario that was presented and it involved opposing candidates and I didn't want to condition a yes in a manner that would stifle further innovation in this field or answer questions that I haven't had fully presented before me. I think that if -- I want to at least preserve the option of hearing an argument. I might agree with chair ravels reasoning on that but I want to preserve that ability to consider whether opposing candidates a necessary element from the legal perspective in order to approval a proposal like this. And in this case, where that isn't at issue and so argumentation isn't being submitted before the commission. I don't want to foreclose that option through the advisory opinion process as commissioner Goodman pointed out we, I think, through the -- in trying to reach a compromise I think we worked within the grain of the chair's draft and I think made substantial accommodations in order to reach compromise and I think the goal being to preserve status quo that we're not boxed in by approving a draft that didn't have reasoning that we were comfortable so that neither side felt boxed in. That we could have read the language and the reasoning in a way that is consistent with how we view the legality of the proposed conduct and other conduct that may come before the commission. I think that's the essence of compromise is to try to reach that point. Unfortunately, we weren't able to do so. My concern about now having a yes with no reasoning is that the chair's draft will become the de facto reasoning of what that's the narrowest grounds. And that will in essence become the de facto reasoning of how we got to a yes and I am concerned whether or not that lands us in the exact same position that I -- that lead to us going through this lengthy process of negotiations over trying to find compromise and I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with having that draft in this case if that is going to be the likely -- if that is going to either be the legally binding or the functional outcome of approving such a stripped down yes with no reasoning. And so I'm not sure I'm comfortable with approving such a stripped downdraft right at this point. 
>> Commissioner Weintraub. 
>> I was trying not to talk on this but just for those who weren't here on the other iterations of this discussion I could not support any of these drafts. Regrettably I know you worked hard on this and I respect the innovative work that you're trying to do here. All of the drafts acknowledge that what you're proposing does differ from what the commission has approved in the past. Something my colleagues wanted to support. I said those differences weren't significant to me. They were. I couldn't support it but I am troubled that my colleagues are not willing to -- I mean, I got no dog in this fight because I'm going to vote no either way but it does trouble me that my colleagues are unwilling to vote for a simple yes which they could then elaborate in separate statements as to their separate reasoning. I think that's -- that really is unfortunate for Mr. Zolt. That's unfortunate if the commission is not able to see that clearly with one voice. Even if the rationales might be different. 
>> Just so we're clear on what ODC should do going forward if there are not four votes with a yes for no reasoning I'm assuming you do not want us to circulate such draft and we'll just send a standard letter that there was not four votes for an advisory opinion. 
>> Right. 
>> Let me ask what is the effect of that yes draft? What reasoning then is primed to control? 
>> Well I understand what vice chair Peterson was saying about the narrowest opinion in, you know, a multijudge court context. That could control -- historically that's not necessarily how the commission has viewed it. In the situation where you have multiple drafts that add up to more than three, you know, it's a matter of public record what the rationales for the different commissioners have voted yes for. When that does not happen there can be separate statements. The requestor. The only real difference is that with the yes advisory opinion the requestor has the undisputed safe harbor for advisory opinions whereas it's one step removed with the four vote -- four votes for yes but no advisory opinion result. Other than that it wouldn't seem to make much of a difference. 
>> Can I speak? 
>> Yes, Mr. Zolt. 
>> Okay, let me say that I want to start by thanking the commission for consideration, their patience and I certainly appreciate the efforts in trying to reach some common ground. And while I'm disappointed in the result, I certainly understand the concerns of the individual commissioners on setting precedential value. I also want to thank the staff that I've dealt with. 
They've been a pleasure to deal with. They are quite professional and I've dealt with several federal agencies and you should be proud of the performance of your staff. And commissioner Weintraub, I was -- 
>> Mr. Zolt, thank you very much and I know you met some of our staff when I were in -- I believe when you were in L.A. when we were there and you're absolutely right. We have wonderful staff. 
>> Okay. The challenge for me is not that I thought we were violating commissions regulations and requirements. It's just to obtain additional funding from investors and opinion from the FEC I consider to be really necessary. So it's -- it does have consequence in determining whether this particular venture goes forward. And, finally, commissioner Weintraub, while I was initially relieved to hear you have laryngitis I hope you feel better and recover quickly. 
>> Thank you Mr. SOELT. 
>> I would ask we leave this matter open and at the end of the open meeting today that we might revisit this issue. It's the first time I've crossed this bridge in a meeting of a yes draft with two different opinions and I don't think we need professor Zolt for this issue but before we leave this today we consider it and push it to the end of the day. 
>> Do you think the end of the day? Do you think it might make sense to ask Mr. Zolt for a week or so before we close the matter and maybe we can resolve this disagreement relating -- 
>> If he wants to give us a week. 
>> I'm fine in extending the deadline again for a week. 
>> That would be helpful. Just in the case that general council might want to be writing one of those drafts that we discussed assuming we can reach that agreement. 
>> It would not take us very long. 
>> It's about two sentences long. 
>> That's good. I wouldn't want to take up too much of your time. All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Zolt, really appreciate your patience with our timing on these matters. 
>> Okay. Thank you very much. I'm off to class. 
>> All right. 
>> Thanks, good-bye. 
>> Take care. Bye. Okay the next matter is and we have Joanna and Robert here and also requestors council and thank you both for your patience as well. KI HONG. Welcome. Is there a presentation? 
>> Thank you chair and commissioners. Agenda document 1558A is a draft response to an opinion requested by 21st century fox. They own networks in states and regions. 
>> (Loud beep). 
>> As customers outside are given networks region can subscribe to that network by purchasing a supplemental package. They intend to sell advertising time during regional sports productions for campaigns. Some for presidential primary candidates. How many people can receive this for purposes of determining whether the communication is election nearing. The only person outside the network that is counted are those to have access to the network. The draft concludes that in those circumstances the only ones in the market are those that to have access to the network on which the communication is televised. We receive two comments on the request and no comments on the draft. 
>> Are there questions for her? Commissioner Weintraub. 
>> I'm not sure if the council knows but when we calculate whether 50,000 or more persons can receive the communication, how do we deal with commercial establishments like bars? Like these are sporting events that we're talking about broadcasting so I would imagine that there's -- some people are going to watch it at their local sports bar. That's more than a typical family. Does the FCC look at things like that. 
>> There's no precedent on that, commissioner, but I don't think you do track those because it's not in the rule. When the rule talks about calculating how many have access to it it only talks about family. So we go with that standard. 
>> This draft probably got out a little later than we'd like. First of all to give you an opportunity have you had an adequate chance to review this draft and are there any questions or concerns that any of the use of the language gave rise to. 
>> We have reviewed the draft and we have no issues with it. 
>> If I could just ask one clarification, I guess both to council -- just to make sure we're all understanding, make sure it's clear. On page two, starting online 14, the short answer to the question where we say in calculating how many persons can receive the communication receiving to a presidential candidate for the purposes of determining whether it is an election nearing communication. The only persons outside an RSNs regional sports network for those who haven't read the request yet, outside of a regional sports network local market that might be counted are those that are access to the network on which the communication is televised. I just want to make sure that it's clear that when we talk about those who are on outside the network, those are counting towards whatever market that they reside. Not towards the in market. So that you don't have ludicrous result that, I don't know, let's say it's reachable in California and let's say there were 40,000 households in Maryland and 10,000 in California. Those don't count towards Maryland's baseline and the language was a little bit -- it could be interpreted a little bit confusingly along those lines but I want to make sure that that was the understanding from general councils. I see you nodding. I want to have it on the record that that's the understanding so that should there -- should anyone raise questions on that in the future, that's what we're talking about when we answer with the language that we have here. So that's the only thing that I'd add. 
>> Any other comments? Questions? Commissioner Weintraub. 
>> Thank you. Just as a follow up to my question, your request talks about productions that are also available to individuals outside of those areas. So I'm reading this as a request about individuals and I guess we can put off the question about -- what about sports bars for another day. I'm prepared to support the draft on that basis. 
>> Is there -- commissioner Walter? 
>> With respect to the advisory opinion the 201-10, 21 century Fox I move to approve to make any necessary technical and conforming ads. 
>> All right. Comments? Questions? If not all those in favor please say aye. 
>> Aye. 
>> Aye. 
>> Those voting no? 
>> [Pause]. 
>> That passes by five to one. All voting yes and -- you didn't vote -- oh, you D I didn't hear you. Speak up. No, I'm just joking. That passes unanimously. I'm sorry. Forgive me. Congratulations. Thank you for being here. The next i -- item is item six rule making proposals. Commissioner Goodman. 
>> Thank you, madame chair. Let me begin with just suggesting, well, with making some edits to my proposed resolution and then I'll discuss them. You have before you a resolution style, resolution of the federal commission commencing work on a notice of proposed rule making on strengthening political parties and in number 1A I would amend that. The word delete I would -- I would change that to the word amend so that we would amend A 23 instead of delete it. And then continuing that sentence to say to eliminate mere candidate references and I would insert this language, from all communications other than electioneering communications. And then the rest of it would remain the same and the purpose of that change is to preserve coordination for electioneering communications which I think is required by statute. Then on on page two under 1F, under the language it begins insert a new provision in. I would strike 11CFR 109.21 and so the focus of 1F would only focus on 109.37 and I don't propose we change 109.21. And -- those are the changes I would propose at the table to the proposed resolution you have before you. Now to present this, let me just say, there is much political science, practitioner, and think tank discussion of what's become a political parties both in their political efficacy and their significance in the political process in isolation as well as relative to other political speakers. And there is -- there has developed, I believe, a consensus. Indeed I believe this general consensus has been acknowledged by this general commission that there are things we could do that Congress could do and that this commission could do to provide political parties some regulatory relief to make them more effective democratic institutions. Why is that important? First I focus on state and local parties and my resolution is focused on state and local political parties which I consider the small D democratic institutions in America today. They are populist institutions, populated by real, average Americans at the state and local level who devote their time and passion to causes and not necessarily their money as entree to the political process. They are, by definition local, we are not talking about facilitating large contributions or activities from people outside of state or congressional district to be visited in a state but we're talking about facilitating the democratic activity of citizens of a locality or state where they live. These are political institutions are perpetual in existence not just special itself groups that pop up and disappear, come and go and because they're perpetual I call them the motel six of politics. They will always keep a light onto those who want to engage in the political process. The activities that are largely the focus of these state and local political parties is wholly virtuous in constructive political activity. Their core democratic activities consist of registering voters. Getting voters out to vote. Contacting voters. Knocking on doors, passing out flyers at polls. Organizing volunteers. Sponsoring barbecues where candidates speak. And these institutions are accountable. They have a name brand that is closely associated with their nominees. People can hold these institutions accountable. And they are he would accountable often one part goes out of favor versus the other. And they are also accountable in the sense that they disclose their activities. The -- what this sums up to is what the center has called engines of civic engagement. They provide average citizens access to politicians. Two phrases that we often here in a very pejorative sense but I've never known a politician, a Congressman, senator, governor, who did not know the people who constituted their state and local political parties. And did not listen to them. And the consequences of overregulation of these institutions is that much of their democratic activity is prohibited by regulations that are not necessarily protecting anybody from any corruption in the political process. And what we lose through that overregulation is we lose much populist and democratic activity. The populus becomes less important. They become clubs. Not muscular political institutions. Now recently they called for financial reform too although my proposals don't raise any limits or affect the amount of money flowing through politics. But what these legal reforms would do is they would strengthen political parties as institutions within the bounds of where I believe this commission can go. They would strengthen the political efficacy and relevance of parties and facilitate more democratic engagement. Now the Brennan center had several recommendations. One was to elimination or raise party coordinated expenditure limits. I can't do that here. We can't do that here but we can confine the definition of what is a coordinated expenditure to allow them to spend in other areas not subject to the coordinated expenditure limits. And another proposal that the Brennan center recommended was at a legislative level to free up the political parties to engage in the more activities that were defined as federal election activity so that the partys can get back in the business of engaging citizens to participate in a demock rahty and the proposals that are in this resolution address those areas of democratic activity. 

If turning to page one of the proposed resolution, under number 1A. 1A would allow political parties free of the coordinated party limits to publish brochures, direct mail, all sorts of printed publications that refer to candidates but do not exprez ly advocate them and get them out of the content wrong of express advocacy. The reason I have proposed an amendment is because by statute electioneering statutes are required. That's the only one however that is not in the statute. Under subsection B. This would redefine and limit the republication doctrine and coordination. This commission through MERS has allowed party to reprint candidate photos in their materials. A form of republication and in 11 CFR 10923 B 4 the commission has a regularlation that allows them to publish brief quotes. So the door's already been opened to stretch to some extent the bounds of what the republication and what I'm proposing is so long as a candidate material does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate and is made a support or part of a party material we could build on the photos, the MERS involving photographs and the brief quotes already in our regulations. Under 1C already a -- an amendment to provide candidate to political parties. Already candidate consist pro -- candidates can be incorporated into party materials without triggering the product prong of coordination and I would propose that we simply add candidate biographical information as well. It's a fairly innocuous and small thing for them to provide. Under subsection 1D would amend here. Also to amend the conduct prong or at least to clarify the conduct prong that a candidate may provide a political party opinion poll results purchased by the candidate without that constituting the conduct of coordination. I believe that's already required under the Christian coalition decision of 1998 or 1999 where the Christian coalition was alleged to have engaged in coordinating conduct with a number of republican campaigns Oliver north, president Bush's reelection. Jesse helms in north North Carolina and there was an exchange and the court found that did not constitute KOORD fating data. Different people can look at polling data and draw different conclusions about the strategy. I've seep that happen. And so I believe we can allow them to share their opinion poll results. .1E. I believe is probably already the law. But I believe we could amend 109.37 to clarify that political parties may use all information obtained from any publicly available source. This combined with the provision of 1B on the prior page gets at some of the issues that have dogged the commission over things like B roll footage placed out there in the public domain and then the use. Let's let the parties use materials like that placed in the public domain and incorporate in a party's materials as a subordinate part of their materials. Let's allow them to do that and subsection B and E get at that issue. Under 1F there was an historical MER here that dealt with the issue of handbills and whether walking around and handing out handbills constituted a public communication or not that would constitute an expenditure. There was a statement of reasons issued by commissioner toner, commissioner mason and commissioner Vans. There was no disagreement on this issue. It was issued a separate opinion but not disagreeing with this point. Whether republican commissioners opine that the handbills were not a public communication and, therefore, a group's passing out of handbills did not constitute a public communication to trigger an expenditure in the first instance. I'm suggesting that because the definition of public communication under 100.26 has that catch phrase at the end that we clarify for the political parties that the stock and trade of what they do to communicate with people buttons, bumper stickers, passed out by volunteers, we clarify that that is not a public communication. Because all of the content prongs of the coordination regulation at 109.37 hinge on the public communication. All of them says a public communication, a public communication, a public communication. So I'm proposing that we give them the clarity that all of these types of grassroots campaign materials are not a public communication so that they have the clarity that they can pass those out with -- in coordination with the candidate without triggering the content prong of coordination. Turning then to party volunteer activity. I can't think of anything more we would want to encourage by political parties then encouraging volunteers to participate in the political process. There are some discrepancies in some of the provisions of the regulations. For example, if you look at 11 CFR 100.87 which is the provision on political party activities. Excuse me 100.87. We identify a series of things in our current regulation that are not include in the definition of contribution. And they include things, campaign materials, such as pins, bumper stickers, posters, party tabloids and newsletters and yard signs. In subsection A of that regulation, we do -- we explain what is not exempt and we give a specific list. Broadcasting newspaper magazine billboard direct mail or similar type of general public communication. What I'm suggesting we do in there is what about volunteer phone banks? They aren't explicitly enumerated in either of those two lists. I'm suggesting we put volunteer phone banks in the category of things such as brochures, if I can send somebody a brochure or a party tabloid why can't I read it to them over the telephone? Under 2B, amending 100.87, the other important area of volunteer activity's volunteer mail so 2A addresses volunteer phone banks. 2B makes clear there has been ongoing debate within the commission for years over what precisely constitutes a volunteer mail drive versus a commercial one. And I'm just suggesting that we clarify that definition in a way that gives the parties maximum freedom that for the purposes of this paragraph direct mail means any mailings performed wholly by a commercial vendor because there's been debates for years over how much role it takes to turn a volunteer mail drop into something other. I'm just suggesting we give the parties maximum freedom there so long as their not just turning it all over to a commercial vendor that we give them to conduct that mail. Under 2C amending 11 CFR 100.87 C that a candidate can transfer political funds to a party. You'll recall that this issue came up just within the last four or five months here in MER 6691 which was the lamp son MER which is now on public record. There a candidate in Texas transferred money to the Texas democratic party and the question was whether they could engage in volunteer material with that money on behalf of lamp son. The three parties gave their argument for why it should be legal for candidate lamp son to have given transferred funds to the Texas democratic party and for them to use those funds to engage in volunteer mail activities on behalf of lamp son. Certainly there are no corrupted potentials there because lamp son could have been spent his own money. So why not to the party that nominated him. All disclosed. Lamp son transfers to the money and to the mail disclosed with no corrupted potential. The reasoning for that is set forth in the republican statement in 6691. Under 2D. This is really a clarification. We know that all the campaign materials that are districted by volunteers are exempt from the distribution of contribution but there are these interstitial activities that the parties engage in such as bussing people to a door knocking campaign conducting a volunteer rally, there are things that are cost incurred not directly on communications but merely the activities themselves and I'm just suggesting that we give the parties the clarity they need that when they engage in those volunteer activities they are due the same materials that are printed and passed out in connection with those activities. That takes me to then to point three. What can we do. The bipartisan campaign format. Federalized activity in ways that largely prohibited state and local parties from engaging in the voter registration. Those are things we want to have happen. We know that the current regulatory regime is prohibitive. And prevents much of that activity from happening. So if you -- 3 A, B, and C are closely related and based on a technical read on 100.24. Under 100.24 federal activity is defined and there are certain exemptions to that definitions. Get out the voter activity. They're both parallel regulations. If you exhort somebody to register to vote or you encourage or urge somebody to vote that is considered federal election activity. Then there are other categories of get out the vote activity and voter registration such as preparing and distributing the registration. Informing people of when and where to vote. However, the Shea's decision told us that they do not have to be regulate as federal activity so I say we build on this and already 
in our regulation to remove the limited exemption for exorations. Right now some people read the incidental exemptions in sub parts two only to apply to the encouraging sections. I'm suggesting we strip that and extend the incidental exception to all of the activities that can constitute voter register activity and not just the XRORation provisions and, C, puts a finer point on that because the regulation already gives specific examples and what I'm proposing is that we clarify with a new example so that if a political, a state or local political party goes out and -- in the course of campaigning for a state or local candidate and encouraging people to vote for their state or local candidate, also gives information about how to go vote for the state or local candidate we would consider that incidental to the federal election and we would not restrict it under federal election activity. Finally, under 3D we stayed pretty tide up here over what to do about allocations and, by the way, we have difficulty with it here if you think we have difficulty, imagine the volunteer driven state and local parties trying to comply with our allocation rules for employees who are engaging in a mix of activities on a daily basis. And we know, from experience, that virtually all of them have problems keeping logs and so what I'm proposing is that we go back to basics and the language at the statute. Under the statute, a form of federal election activity which is a special rule for employee salaries reads as follows. Services provided during any month by an employee of a state, district, or local committee of a political party who spends more than 25% of that individual's compensated time during that month on activities in connection with a federal election. Along the way to splice activities with the connection with the federal election and we thereby expanded this payment rule for state and local party employees to a much broader category that the statute doesn't require us to go to. Now curiously, when you read our registrations in 11 CFR section 106.8 sub part E 2 it reads consist with the statute. Salaries and wages for employees who spend more than 25% of their compensated time in a given month on activities in connection with a federal election must not be allocated. All such disbursements must be made from a federal account. We used the phrase in connection with a federal election. We didn't splice in the word or other federal election activity there. I believe we are within our rights in applying the allocation rules and the log keeping rules throughout our regs to tether this to the plain language of the statute and the allocation regulation. We expanded the requirements for allocation funds and log keeping by expanding it to other federal election activity when we weren't required to do so. So I'm suggesting that we require the allocation with federal funds or payment with federal funds and/or the log keeping only where the candidates are engaging in activity and connection with a federal election which we know to mean expressly advocacy activities. That would resolve many of myopic enforcement matters we have going on here over logs and what have you. Now that's the proposal. This is the start. The resolution is captioned, a resolution commencing work on a notice of proposal rule making. It proposes the office of general council continue to give us guidance both in the drafting of this concept paper. And that it would of course come back to the commission. I believe that this is a bipartisan proposal. That would help republican parties and democratic parties and libertarian and green parties. It has evening cue menial benefits for all political parties out there. And I also believe this is an issue whose time has come and there is a general consensus and I know that regardless of what strategic or other concerns any commissioner may have I believe that all of us want to help the state and local political parties. So I saw this as an opportunity to give us something that we could all agree to to help all these political actors and have all of these civic benefits in the process and so I'm going to hold off on making a motion right now because I want to give the commission an opportunity to discuss it and then we can decide where to go from there. Thank you, madame chair. 
>> Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Weintraub. 
>> I promise I won't talk as long as commissioner Goodman did. I'm not going to comment on any of the specific proposals in here other than to say the general matter that the commission, this predates my tenure on the commission. The commission tried to adopt rules under the federal election activity provision of BICRA that would give party committees more flexibility and they were struck down. And the Shea's litigation and we had to redo those rules. So I'm not going to opine here on whether any of the changes that you're suggesting would or wouldn't pass muster under the court. The issue you raised of the role of party committees and the role they're playing in today's elections is not an issue that I believe can be looked at in isolation. Virtually every comment today TOR I have seen talk about this talks about this with superPACs and other spending groups and I have have had on the table since before you got here, maybe I haven't made this pitch to you but I have been willing for years to open a rule making that would take a look at the mu landscape in coordination both there the party context and in the super PAC context. I think they are two sides of the coin and have to be looked at together. I know commitments on any of these particular provisions that you're suggesting, any of these particular amendments I'm happy to have council include all of them in an PMRM that would also address super PAC coordination that I think is long overdue to consider. You raised the Brennan center report. Let me read something from the Brennan center report when they talk about coordinated spending limits you suggested they're in favor of lifting or eliminating them. You have to read below the headline on that because what they say in the report is nor do we think it would be advisable to lift federal coordinated spending limits before addressing the federal election commission's pervasive enforcement failures including the failure to enforce laws, restricting coordination 
between groups between party committees. They go onto say lifting what the parties can contribute may make sense where a reasonable and fully enforced framework of party contribution limits is in place and they limit that point in a comment they filed just this week with respect to another rule making proposal in which they state by statute the commission is responsible for implementing the act. Recent years have had dramatic changes in the landscape but that the act is implemented with congressional intent. As a result the political system is more vulnerable to corruption and more transparent than it ought to be and some reforms cannot be reliably implemented. And it's on us. So I would welcome your cooperation in changing the widespread understanding of this commission as a place where rules will not be enforced. At addressing the federal elections commissions failures in the terms of the Brennan center. There's something this commission really cold -- could take on. And as I said even putting aside that pervasive problem I would happy to engage in a rule making project that addressed the new legal landscape and the new factual landscape. The new way of doing business out there. But it's not just what's going on in party committees. It's what's going on with other outside actors and I think as I said earlier we are DER reelect in our duties. So whenever you want to make your rule making proposal I would be happy to make a more expansive rule making proposal that we address all of your concerns as well as concerns about coordination of super PAC s and other outside spenders. 
>> Thank you is there another comment on this? Commissioner Hunter. 
>> I want to thank him for putting this proposal 
together and it's helpful to see it all in one document that the public can now see that we're committed to doing things that happen participation especially at the local and state level. With respect to commissioner Weintraub's comments just so I understand which specifically are you talking about? You don't want to move forward on an MPRM to do the things that Commissioner Goodman has highlighted because you want to also address coordination in super PACS. 
>> That's the offer I made to the people on your side of the table years ago and it's still open. 
>> But is there still a specific document that you drafted. 
>> Yeah, that's the one you said if I took out every single word I would consider on a rule making proposal as long as it contained not a single word of my proposals. 
>> Now I know what you're talking about. That's not exactly true but I thought you had just been talking about the discussion that we had at that fund public meeting in February where you asked Don Simon what specifically would you want to do to regulate super PACs and he said follow the legislation that was proposed in Congress. I believe it's the price van hall legislation. 
>> No, that's no what I was referring to. I'm referring to a proposal that I made years ago. 
>> And that was the one that we worked -- that the officer general counsel drafted with both republican commissioners and democratic commissions. Is that the one that you're talking about. 
>> If you want to go back through this stupid document again it was a document that was prepared by our general counsel's document and after we saw the document we had new suggestions that ought to be taken into account because if we talk about regulate super PACS we need than a box on a form. 
>> Okay, sorry that you think it's stupid. I'm trying to understand exactly what you're proposing. 
>> I didn't say it was stupid. 
>> I thought you did. We're just sort of talking in vague generalities. 
>> I gave you a very specific regulatory proposal years ago and I got no response back from you. I gave you several months to think about it. I went to your office and you said to me I can't say that this is a verbatim quote but it's very close to what you said that as soon as I took out every single word that I added to the document then we could move forward on the rule making -- 
>> That was because the document that we got to was a bipartisan agreement on an MRPM. We had a lot of input from the democratic commissioners to draft that and after reading some of your times articles we threw in a lot of hyperbole. That was the part I was opposed to. I don't it's fair to say -- as I said there was an MPRM that was something we could agree on something we could put out. 
>> Obviously it wasn't. 
>> Because you added a lot of things to it that we thought was objectionable and you know that and we talked about it. 
>> That's true. There were ideas that we suggested that you were unwilling to put out. That is certainly true. 
>> Mr. Vice chair. 
>> Thank you madame chair. I think that first of all thank Commissioner Goodman for the time that he invested into putting together I think so a list of very constructive proposals to provide some regulatory relief for state and local parties. I think it's no secret and becoming more and more of a consensus perhaps that the burdens that were imposed by the McCain legislation felt disproportionate ly on state and local parties and I think that that was a reality at the time that the bill was enacted. And I think as the legal landscape has been altered further through court decisions in the interim has only accelerated if nothing else. And I think that we're finally starting to see on both sides of the aisle and across the id owe logical speck trim -- a reviewalization is necessary for a healthy demock rahty and I think we've seen different manifestations of that. I think the fact that we have a new party accounts which I know there's a document that relates to that as well. I think was a recognition of that. And I think that there's -- I hope that there's momentum and movement afoot that comprehensively we may start to really look at the regulatory regime that governs state and local parties to see how we can provide relief to revitalize them, you know, taking into account the concerns that animated the regulations in the first place but I think that there are ways in which to address that while still helping out the parties and I think that this is a very good first step and I hope that we can find some way to get this ball in motion. It's no mystery that we've had difficulties to get these initiatives moving and, you know, we probably all bear some of the blame. I think part of the issue may be that we have a, I don't know, maybe there's a tendency to swing for the fence when settling for some sharp singles every so often isn't such a bad thing. I would hope that -- it's the world series, a baseball analogy -- if not now, when? 
>> What's swinging from the fence. 
>> Oh, baseball. If you -- 
>> I know it's baseball but who swings from the fence? 
>> Who swings from the fence? 
>> Oh, swing through the fence. 
>> Sometimes we want to -- 
>> Okay. I'm good with it. I'm good with it. Got it. 
>> I'll get my dictionary of sports cliches out to -- 
>> Give me a copy. 
>> But I hope that we might be able to find ways -- I realize that we have sometimes different priorities in terms of rule makings but hopefully -- like I said, I think this is a very constructive proposal. If we could find come mes rate packages that we could agree on. I hope we could go down that path. I know there are issues on both sides that are larger scope, bigger picture items that we would like addressed where they're realistically difficulty in finding a consensus but on those things where we could find a consensus I would hope that we would make every effort to try and see if we can, like I said enact I think some very constructive proposals that would have a meaningful impact on the process. 
>> I appreciate the work this a you did on this Commissioner Goodman and I have a couple of thoughts about that. I mean, obviously you know and I've said this clearly that I think improving our rules and updating the regulations with respect to the impact on parties local and state parties is something that I'm concerned about as well. So, you know, I totally understand your -- where you're coming from on this and here's -- here's two thoughts that I have about it though. I think in some ways this might be a little bit premature. Number one, commissioner Hunter and I, while we were not you know moving along very fast, we have begun conversations about this very issue and about looking at it a little more broadly. I agree with commissioner Weintraub that it would be irregular, perhaps, maybe that's not the right word. But to be looking at party coordination without looking at the coordination regulations in toto. And so that might be one way that we could talk about this issue together because what has concerned me. I mean, and obviously I do want to continue to work with commissioner Hunter and I want to talk about all of these issues and try to reach some sort of an agreement on the issues whether big or small that we can agree on. I think my trouble is that I feel as if we address issues in a piecemeal basis sometimes. And whether it be in AOs instead of doing regulations and the inability to get to regulations and my concern is, I mean, look, we've got teletype machines in our regulations. We got so many things that are OUT moded and easy that we could do also. I mean, seriously and I know the office of general council has a number of technology changes and the like that I think we should be addressing as well. But just in general, I fear when we look at matters in this isolated way, that's when we make mistakes. And that's when we're not looking at the legal landscape, the, you know, political landscape that we're now facing. And trying to deal with the issues broadly. And whether or not, you might be right, Mr. Vice chair. Those things may not be something that we can achieve. But I think it's worth a try. Even in the context of this. If we have good will on one thing maybe we can work on something else. As well. And it may not be big but it might be. I -- you know, I never want to give up hope. And that's part of what my issue is here and I'm willing to work on it and meet with commissioner Hunter and meet with any one of you and the people on my side as well but I couldn't support right today this resolution at the moment. 
>> Thank you. I think going back in time just for a minute when we updated the coordination regulations following the Shea's decision I think it was in 2009. I can't remember the year. We wanted to address some of these issues then and our colleagues said no, we can't do that because we're only going to address the Shea's issue so we were trying to do that back then which was deal with a lot of issues directly related to the coordination regulation. Not the ones that you had concerned about but the ones we wanted as well and we were told no, this has to be just about Shea's and we've been trying to do this now for many years so that's one. And two, I think part of the problem here, it seems fairly evident is that we're viewing these changes as Commissioner Goodman said as bipartisan. We think they're bipartisan based on what we're hearing from panels, reports, meetings and so we don't think this is something that should be terribly controversial. I'm not hearing any specific objection to the proposals and so we were hoping as the vice chair said this is something we can move the ball forward on and what we're hearing is maybe but we want to add some other things to the mix that are controversial and we're happy to discuss the party regs but adding a super PAC coordination regulation is clearly going to tie this up and it's something that we haven't been able to know to work through up until this point and it's not terribly likely that we're going to come up with agreement on something on that anytime soon. 
>> Well it may not be that but it may be NPRM on the COMny bus which is related clearly to parties. It certainly should include the technological modernization that I think we failed to bring to the table that we should just get done. And, you know, there's lots of other issues that we could discuss in this regard. I mean, I think if we're going to move forward on things, we have to do it 
with a sense of cooperation. I mean the fact that this is bipartisan that is it's bipartisan by the parties are interested in this. But it -- some of us think that we look at issues not solely from that perspective. I, myself, don't think that I'm partisan and I know that might be laughable to others but I don't and I sort of look at the world more in terms of what I think is proper policy given what we're seeing in campaigns now and some of the concerns that are at the forefront that I think some of them were discussed by commissioner Weintraub. So for me, I mean, if we're going to be looking at issues relating to parties and I understand that there are concerns about state and local parties and I am not in disagreement with the importance of obviously civic engagement and the way those parties bring people to have contact with elected officials which is important so people feel that they're a part of the government but I also believe that we have to look at issues in a more broad way is there a motion? Commissioner Goodman. 
>> Let me seek greater clarity before we decide whether to move to a motion today. Let me respond to some of the chair's remarks. We've let two years pass since joining this commission chair ravel and -- 
>> Do you believe it? My anniversary was yesterday. 
>> The -- we're over a year since we had a forum here. Right here. And I see some people who attended that forum who were here today. And chair ravel, you've been the -- your caucus as representative on the regulations committee for two years and we are coming to the end of your chairmanship year. I guess one question I have is, will working on all of these ideas and including political parties be a priority of yours throughout next year? Here at the commission? If we're going to take more time to work on this, continue and work with this work that you've been doing for over two years with commissioner Hunter is this going to be a priority of yours. 
>> Is this kind of like a republican debate question? 
>> This is a question about -- 
>> Am I going to be -- 
>> Are you offering to work on these issues pretext eventually. Are we going to be doing the work. None of this can happen this year just to have this drafted by the staff is a proposal to have it drafted by December 30th of this year. I'm just looking for the approval to go get this developed into what an MPRM would look like. But the hard work of it would then start next year. All of the other proposals we have on the agenda today including the memorandum about the new accounts at the parties. I have some questions about a few of those proposals. But if we could marry that up today, that is a proposal. We could marry -- I will offer a compromise here today to talk about looking at things in a broader sense. I will propose that we take Mr. Know DI's memorandum as is even though I have some concerns about some planks of it. Along with my proposal and we authorize the council to draft a broader MPRM about the political parties now you talk about piecemeal. Historically that's the way regulation's get adopted on particular subjects. We don't take the whole, let's do an omnibus 11 CFR amendment on five or six different issues. They're always focused on discreet topics or issues and so I would say let's take the political parties and the two marks that are on our agenda today. One that your side wants that would impose greater regulations on the parties and how they use the new funds that come into their new accounts with this deregulatory proposal that's largely focused on state and local political parties and let's put them into one MPRM and have our office of general council begin to work on those. And -- but let's get the work started. If -- that's all I'm asking. Let's get that started one big party rule making proposal. And nobody is locked in when the office of general council finishes that draft. No one is locked in to whether they move that proposal after that. The -- so I guess I'm rebutting or responding to your point that this is premature. We've had over two years here and we've committed to wanting to do this. All we need is the will to do it now. And if, gee, there are a whole lot of other issues that holistically we need to look at and I've been on the regulations committee all this time and I haven't looked at them in two years and I can't commit to whether I'm even going to make this a priority next year and my service at the commission. I guess I start to question whether this is blocking something or a sincere attempt to move something because I've just proposed a good faith compromise. 
>> I didn't say I wasn't going to commit to doing it. It's -- you're hurling accusations that are false once again. 
>> The accusation that we've been here for two years and if regulations committee has had this proposal in its breast -- 
>> No we haven't had this proposal. 
>> You've had these ideas. I took largely -- by the way the providence of this -- I don't take all the credit for this. This largely emanates from commissioner Hunter. I was just the guy who decided to plunk it down in blue. And so I don't know that it's premature. It's not even irregular. And to marry apples and oranges because you know the other coordination regs are in a different regulatory section. The party regs are in their own discreet section and they are not identical today and the party regs were not challenged in the Shea's decision. They never addressed party coordination and the unique situation of the parties, the unique relationships of parts to their nominees the you -- unique First Amendment rights that apply to parties and nominees but what we have that cover everybody else in coordination, boy, I know we're new here but you should look at the decade-long legal glossed for this commission to get there. Five years of investigating the Christian coalition to derive a lot of the parameters of what is and is not coordination. This commission thought they had a coordination case until the court said no, that is not. Then came the bipartisan campaign reformat. That altered some of the conduct prongs. Then came the Shea's litigation. And the commission's effort to adopt one set of rules. Do adopt one set of rules to have it remanded to issue another set of rules. It took this commission a decade to get to where it landed in 109.21. But 109.37 I believe we have greater leeway to move and to help the political parties. So I -- I'm concerned that to say well, we haven't been -- in the two years I've been here we haven't been able to address any other controversial issue so I'm going to hold this hostage to a lot of other controversial issues is using the dysfunction to justify further dysfunction on this issue that should unite us and not divide us. It should unite us because many of these are merely clarifying provisions. They're good for all political parties. This is not dramatic in the scheme of things but it would mean a lot to a lot of state and local political parties and the little things they do to knock on doors and engage people in the political process. And, yet, we can't seem to muster the will to accomplish that kind of bipartisan progress here at the commission. I'd like to take a -- just a couple minutes to confirm with my colleagues on whether I want to proceed to a motion today or is there some appetite to continue discussing this to see if we can get to my compromise which is a more comprehensive -- I'm asking, is it worth taking the time. Is my proposal. You mentioned two things. You mentioned Mr. Notety's memorandum on an account. The new party accounts. Which is a fairly proregulatory proposal. But if we were to marry that up with this. And if we were to go to the updates. The technological updates which you placed on this agenda. If we were to do all of that, would that be enough to get in one chunk of commission functionality? Two things that you want. With one that you say you agree with the principles of and could we at least begin the drafting of it? So that's -- I guess I want to take the temperature of the commission to decide whether we need -- whether it would be constructive to take more time until November to see if we can discuss. I propose two things for one in order to move forward. 
>> Commissioner Weintraub. Please. 
>> I could turn your words on you exactly. The technological modernization should be completely non controversial because it's got no ramifications at all for party or for anything else so to say we're going to give you this big present, we're going to agree to modernize our technology and take out the word teletype in our regulations I'm not seeing that as a big give. I would think that that could be something -- we could -- we could do regardless of anything else we decide to do. You call the COMny bus as regulatory and I call it implementing. It stays on the statute. You call it bipartisan although it was no prepared from input on anybody from this side of the table so I'm not sure in what sense you think that's bipartisan but, you know, am I willing to engage with you further on topics that we actually haven't talked a lot about offline before you brought it to the table in a blue document. I'm happy to talk to you about that it. 
>> I agree. Electronic modernization is something we could move regardless of this. The chair said that's someone of the things we ought to be able to move and -- but it's 109 pages I need more time to view it but in November we may be able to move that and I'm not going to hold it HOOS hostage to this. If it's a good thing to do I'm going to do it. I was just proposing that to the extent that the chair was proposing we act more functionally on these good to do items and I consider mine a good to do item and I consider let's put them altogether and do some good things for a change. Okay? And by the way the ideas here are bipartisan. They may not be bipartisan here on the commission. I thought they were. So excuse me for misrepresenting your views on supporting the political parties. However, I can tell you there are democrats -- 
>> Don't characterize your colleagues. 
>> You said I had characterized you as bipartisan. 
>> No, this document that you have put before us is not a bipartisan document. It's one that you and perhaps with input from commissioner Hunter as I understand it prepared. 
>> I can tell you this, there are democrats across this town who support what is in this document and that's why I call it bipartisan. But I won't represent it as bipartisan with respect to you but as for other democrats in town who workday in and day out with state and local parties they find this highly constructive. We had a forum last year with ten representatives of state and local democratic parties we had represents of the working family parties. We had Mr. Fill pee who is here and Mr. Reef and respects of the republican party. The most represented political party in the room were state and local democratic parties and they all spoke. And I know you were there. 
>> I was there. 
>> And Mr. Reef speak. He's here today and I know they -- some of these came from a document they gave us in connection with that African-American. So I'm -- drug from democratic parties we need much of this relief. So that's why I represent this as a bipartisan idea. 
>> I'm just suggesting if you want to put forward a bipartisan proposal in a commission maybe you should talk to some democrats on this. 
>> Would it be worth taking more time to give you a chance to come to my office to discuss this? Is it futile because at the end of the day this will be taken hostage over more controversial issues or could we work with the parameters I suggested. We could do an omnibus party proposal making. Mean would have to commit today. On whether they're going to vote it out later on. But we could ask Mr. Notety to begin drafting precisely what he's proposed in his memorandum on accounts. As well as these concepts and we will continue to coordinate with Mr. Neatty and Mr. POEal lis to the extent they see legal problems I tried to shore up some of them today. But we would begin that process. Why is that not a reasonable, functional way for us to proceed? And by the way in the meantime, I will work on the electronic modernization proposal and we don't have to hold it hostage and move that out in November. I'm not making that a condition of anything. 
>> In response to your question I am happy to talk to you about it. I'm not going to make any commitments today but what you're proposing is you're going to take you want to do and choose which thing we want to do we should accept as a fair deal in combination. Ultimately we're going to have to make that choice but I'm happy to talk to you about it. 
>> I'm just making you an offer. 
>> I need to look more specifically at your regulatory proposals in light of the Shea's court ruling. I'm happy to put out virtually anything for comment but I'm not prepared to say that I think it would work. So, you know -- 
>> I wrote down your point and something I'm going to look back at as well. If you think that would be constructive then I will recommend that we hold this over as we have other matters to another meeting and we'll take it up again in November and by the way we have I think two public meetings in November, is that correct? Just one? Just November 10th? 
>> Right. And then we have when? 
>> December 17th I think. 
>> Well, let's see. Let's talk. We'll talk offline. 
>> We can talk even when there isn't a meeting scheduled. 
>> That's right. Then, madame chair, on this matter, I'm going to ask that it be held over from now until November 19th and we'll continue our conversation about these ideas. 
>> All right. 
>> I don't want to drive it to a polarized result unnecessarily and -- so thank you for your indulgence. Thank you. 
>> Okay. Thank you. The next item is item 7. Notice of proposed rule making on reporting multistate independent expenditures and electioneering in primary elections. We have Joanna again and Bob coming in from OGC. To discuss the matter. Ms. Walsh. 
>> Thank you, Chair ravel. This is a draft notice of proposed rule making and a draft interpretive rule respectfully that are made in connection with the presidential primary election but do not reference or target specific states primary. I'm happy to answer any questions. 
>> Are there questions? Comments? With regard to this? No? All right. Is there a motion? [Pause]. 
>> Madame chair. 
>> Commissioner Hunter. 
>> As you know we discussed this issue at the last public meeting and since then we received a comment from Bob who used -- was the chair and commissioner here at the FEC and I was spoken to my colleague commissioner Weintraub about this issue and maybe I missed an e-mail but I don't think we heard back from you on this? Okay, happy to hold it until the next meeting if commissioner Weintraub would like to continue discussing the proposal I made. I don't want to rush anyone. 
>> I appreciate that and I appreciate that you didn't give me the proposal a couple weeks ago. I have been under the weather and -- but generally speaking the proposal that you made was that we do a rule making with a long comment date and but in the interim that we adopt the rule. I'm not ready to adopt that interpretive rule. I -- and I don't want to promise anything so -- 
>> Okay. Right. But perhaps we should then hold it over nonetheless and maybe there's further discussion that could be had about alternative ways of handling this or we could just leave it as it is now and -- 
>> I'm happy to -- as always talk about it. As I said I didn't hear any counter proposal from anyone. 
>> I don't think I got an e-mail. 
>> So the interim -- the interpretive rule is something that the three republicans are prepared to support now but in an effort to compromise we said we would vote immediately with an extremely long comment period and the purpose of that was to go through December of 2016 to allow people to sort of live through the next election cycle so we would have an interpretive rule for this election cycle that people could try and they could think of comments to provide down the road I'm happy to do so. We just thought it was prudent based on some comments we heard and from previous AOs and that sort of thing that it would be helpful to have a rule on -- for the public to follow in this election cycle obviously the election is occurring right now. If it doesn't look like we're going to get a fourth vote for this, then maybe that's a futile effort. I don't know. 
>> I don't know where my fellow commissioners are but my concern about the interpretive rule idea tied to the convention is that it would essentially eliminate the 24 hour reporting requirement because of the timing and, you know, reporting for nationwide ads I think the 24 hour reporting is important. Because it -- the conventions would occur more than 20 days before the scheduled presidential primary. So that is a concern of mine. I think disclosure is important as you know so I wouldn't be able to support that in that -- with that type -- timing. I'm certainly willing to talk about some approach. 
>> Okay. If you want to -- I don't think that's going to cover a lot of activity, what you're concerned about but happy to consider an edit but, you know, maybe it's -- useful just to say, you know, for the record that at least three commissioners support this. If people are looking for a way to -- that doesn't mean four but three are at least in support of this interpretive rule for these looking on the guidance for this but in the interim we're looking to see what editing you might have. 
>> One of the things that came up for discussion is we tend to not act promptly all the time and so would you be as -- whatever role could be agreed upon would you agree that it would last until the end of next calendar year and then it's no longer in effect so there's a need at that point at least to take a look. 
>> Yes, we would be willing -- 
>> As well as rolling into this -- 
>> Sorry to cut you off. You mentioned that at the last public meeting when we talked a couple weeks ago and I said happy to consider that and for one would be willing to do that. I haven't had a chance to pull my colleagues but -- if we're table sense an interpretive role that is we're happy to agree on that to move forward on this. When I did send a proposal to commissioner Weintraub I did CC the other commissioners. 
>> I don't think so. 
>> I don't think so. 
>> I didn't receive it. 
>> So commissioner Weintraub forwarded it so there you go. 
>> Take it back. I did. All right so we'll -- 
>> I just -- one're -- other comment. I think that -- there were some concerns on our side that the way this interpretive was written would undermine disclosure and that's why we have a problem. Adopting it even on an interim basis and I was hoping that we'd be able to try to come up with maybe a counter proposal. We haven't been able to come up with something. What's on the books is an AO. It's on the books and people may not love it and it was adopted bizarrely enough unanimously thus guaranteeing that everyone would hate it I guess but I think that is where people have to go for guidance in the interim. Until we can come up with something better. 
>> So is the resolution that we will ageneral DIEZ this for the November meeting and attempt to continue conversation? 
>> It doesn't sound like it'll be all that fruitful but happy to try. 
>> All right. So why don't we do that? This matter will be discussed again in November 10th. Item 8. Commissioner Goodman has asked for it to be held over and that makes sense and then the next item -- on the agenda is item nine, proposed final audit report on the committee for Charlotte. Charlotte DNC host committee. 
>> Procedural inquiry. I understood it was an issue -- 
>> Right. Okay. 
>> I don't know if we consider it today. I have no problem with -- report -- 
>> That matter -- 
>> Nor do I have a problem with the other issue you've raised. I wanted to just have a discussion about the implications and procedures by which we do that. 
>> Understood. So we're going to hold this over to discuss in closed session. And then the next item is item number ten and I apologize for calling it up. For some reason because I woke up at 3 a.m. today I have not all my faculties with me. Item ten has also been resolved on tally prior to the meeting. So the last item is the all important Mr. Staff director item eleven. Are there any management or administrative matters the commission needs to discuss today? 
>> Madame chair, there are so such matters. 
>> Thank you very much and thanks once again for that wonderful presentation on the beta site. 
>> I believe you had left to go downstairs but I just want to let you know I remarked and I continue to observe the superlative leadership and creativity you have shown in leading the excellent team of FEC people from the IT department and other various departments to the data department. In putting together the product that we saw earlier and taking the concept of Chair Ravel and the other commissioners to put it in something concrete like that. We recognize the good work of 18F but I want you to know we are deeply appreciative of what you've lead and put together there. Thank you. 
>> Commissioner Walter. 
>> I would like to say, this was a fun day. It was really good to see something come together like this and it deserved a lot of credit from you and those others who have created something like this. We talked about this in 2006 so it's not like it was in the last 24 months but I think one of the things I meant to mention and I forgot this morning as you questioned was on the hand held thing and if there's a beta for using hand held. Or something like that. 
>> The whole mobile responsive process is a recalculates the size for every mobile device whether it's an iPad, an iPhone, and I think what you may be referring to is having a separate application that you can download from the app store. That is not in the pipeline right now. The reason being that takes a totally different skill set and also in the long-term it's more expensive to maintain because with all the different versions that come out whether it's the android or iPhone operating systems you have to update every time. If the mobile responsiveness basically it's developed once and you deploy across all devices. But that's something certainly we can look at. But that's -- strategically probably the best and least expensive way to go right now. How far, having said that, there may be some specific portions of the website that may lean themselves to a specific app that can be downloaded and as we go down this path I think that feedback will be quite helpful to see if that makes sense. 
>> The reason I bring it up is because we attended that one seminar and we said we don't do anything right now and we start with the hand held and start designing the rest to me if we can get all the classes in the world and the Ken Doyles in the world can have it on the run and look at it easily that would be a big breakthrough and that's what I'm thinking about is having that data available. I don't know how it works in between the android and GOOG Google and stuff like that that's a different world but something to keep in mind as we go along if we can save money by designing something that fits for hand held as we go then we might save money that way and then we also I think should take a look at how expensive is it to make this available on hand held because we're spending a lot of money I think disclosure is money where we shouldn't be too concerned about if it provides a better service. 
>> I was actually using my iPhone this morning with the beta and it's perfectly functional. 
>> Right. It will -- you can use it on any device whether it be hand held or or an iPad is my understanding and it just sizes down. 
>> It resizes perfectly. 
>> What was I thinking about that you were thinking -- 
>> You thought you needed -- you wanted an app. I don't care whatever you call it as long as we can get it. 
>> We are going to give you what I want. Let's put it that way. 
>> You got it. This meeting is adjourned. Okay, wait, wait. You can't leave. We have an executive session so in room 15 when will we come back for our executive session? 3:15? Event is not active
Copyright © 2015 Show/Hide Header Show/Hide Chat