U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–282 2012

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: REVIEWING 

POLICIES, PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Held in Washington, DC, November 3, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PHILIP KIKO, Staff Director & General Counsel 

JAMIE FLEET, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: REVIEWING POLICIES, PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Harper, Nugent, Schock, Rokita, Lungren (ex officio), and Gonzalez. 

Staff Present: Phil Kiko, Staff Director and General Counsel; 

Peter Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel; Kimani Little, Parliamentarian; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Yael Barash, Assistant 

Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood, Communications Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel; Karin Moore, Elections Counsel; 

Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Matt Defreitas, Minority Professional Staff; Khalil Abboud, Minority Elections Staff; Thomas 

Hicks, Minority Elections Counsel; and Matt Pinkus, Minority Professional Staff. 

Mr. HARPER. I will now call to order the Committee on House 

Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections for today’s oversight 

hearing on reviewing the policies, processes and procedures of the 

Federal Election Commission. The hearing record will remain open 

for 5 legislative days so that members may submit any materials 

that they wish to be included therein. A quorum is present, so we 

may proceed. 

I want to thank everyone for being here today. Certainly we are 

all busy and so, I thank you for taking this time to be here. We 

believe this hearing is long overdue. In fact, the last FEC oversight 

hearing before this Commission was in 2004. Seven years is a long 

time to go without an oversight hearing on an agency with such 

great consequence to political discourse. There has been a breakdown in this committee’s oversight responsibility and it has been 

a bipartisan one, and it is now time for that to change. 

This past summer, the committee presented the FEC with questions pertaining to agency operations, regulations and litigation. 

Putting partisan conflicts aside, we want to explore the practical 

functionality of the agency. How it works can impact political 

speech and overall disclosure. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

It was a long list of questions. We had a great deal of catching 

up to do, and I appreciate the FEC’s responsiveness to our inquiries. There have been some positive accomplishments, particularly 

in providing more due process for those dealing with the FEC. 

However, I found some of the answers to be troublesome and others 

that perhaps just led to more questions. 

For instance, why is the agency continuously pursuing litigation 

based on legal principles that have been rejected in case after case? 

This constant pursuit to litigate losing cases again and again I believe is an indefensible waste of taxpayers’ money. 

Or, why hasn’t the Commission updated regulations that are unconstitutional after a ruling by the Supreme Court in January of 

2010? 

Federal general elections are just 12 months away. Campaigns 

and independent groups are in full operation and the Commission’s 

regulations are not up to date. How much will candidates spend 

figuring out what rules to follow and what to do? 

And finally why, when asked by this committee, did the Commission refuse to provide a copy of several enforcement documents? 

Why is the Commission withholding its RAD review and referral 

procedures, its enforcement manual and updates and its penalty 

formulas? From what I understand the enforcement manual is 

similar to, for instance, the SEC’s enforcement manual for staff investigations, the Department of Labor’s manual that explains its 

investigative authority and procedures, the U.S. Attorney’s manual 

outlining the Justice Department’s enforcement policies, the DOJ’s 

Antitrust Division’s manual, and the U.S. Parole Commission’s 

manual to name a few. And there are more. They are similar in 

that they all provide their respective staffs with guidelines and 

thresholds necessary to enforce compliance with Federal laws and 

regulations. 

But there is one major difference. Theirs are public and yours 

are not. Instead, you deem yours as a sensitive internal document 

and I have to ask how you can justify that. Just this past January 

during the Commission meeting, Commissioner Weintraub noted 

that promoting transparency is essential to the Commission’s mission. She said, and I quote, we don’t believe in doing things in secret. And I have to ask what is the definition of secret. Unlike the 

FEC, other agencies rightfully make their manuals public to help 

those trying to comply, understand the standards and thresholds 

that they will be held to. Shouldn’t everyone subject to your investigation penalties have those same rights? Your unwillingness to 

release these documents contradicts and ultimately hinders your 

agency’s core mission. And I think it puts us in a situation of are 

we really going to be transparent. 

It is unacceptable and I believe it needs to change, and that is 

why I am going to ask again. This committee is requesting that you 

provide us with your RAD manual, your enforcement manual with 

all updates and your penalty formulas for regular and administrative fines proceedings all within 10 business days. Furthermore, we 

request that you establish agency procedures to make all of them 

publicly available. 

To be clear, this is the second time that we are asking and I believe it is the last time that we will ask. The third request will be 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

in the form of a congressional subpoena and we know we don’t 

want to go there unless we just have to. But we will. I understand 

that there are policy disputes over some of the regulatory progress 

at the agency. But what we are talking about here today are operational failures. 

What disservice is the Commission providing when it doesn’t 

even update its regulations to reflect current law? And how can we 

trust an agency to enforce disclosure when it lacks disclosure? 

As I mentioned, this agency’s actions are of great consequence. 

The laws it enforces are limitations on political speech protected by 

the First Amendment, which is why it is imperative that they be 

enforced in a fair, consistent and transparent fashion. 

Again, I do thank you for being here and I look forward to discussing these issues. I would like now to recognize my colleague, 

Congressman Gonzalez, for the purpose of providing an opening 

statement. Congressman Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And good 

morning to one and all and welcome. I do have two serious concerns on which I hope this hearing will shine some light on. The 

majority’s sole recommendation to the so-called supercommittee 

was eliminating the Election Assistance Commission and transferring some of its duties to the FEC. I am pleased that the minority 

members under Ranking Member Brady’s leadership suggested 

other, more effective suggestions, but I also want to know if the 

FEC can handle the new responsibilities as proposed in the legislation. 

The value of EAC to local election officials should by now be obvi- ous. One Texas county will save $100,000 per year from a single 

EAC suggestion. I was pleased to see articles from former FEC 

Commissioner von Spakovsky and from Eric Ebersole, who the majority called as an expert earlier this year, praising the EAC’s report on the 2010 elections. It is not wholly clear to me whether 

such reports would have survived under H.R. 672 and I am certain 

that the reports would not have received the same priority. 

Regulating campaign finance is FEC’s reason for existence and 

requires the Commissioners’ full attention. This year has seen a 

host of disturbing reports of financial shenanigans and I am eager 

to hear what the Commission is doing about them. 

Let us turn first to the strange career of W Spann, LLC, which 

was created solely to disguise a $1 million donation to the super 

PAC of former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney. That donor 

was shamed into confessing that there were at least two other mystery million dollar donations to Mr. Romney’s super PAC. Mimi 

Swartz in the New York Times later quoted, quote, one influential 

Houston Republican said of a recent Romney fundraising event, I 

had someone else pay for me to go because I didn’t want people to 

know I was there. I believe that paying someone else to donate for 

you is illegal and with this proven disclosure loophole, how do we 

know that foreign nationals haven’t illegally contributed too? 

Nor was Mr. Romney alone in this. From Christina Wilkie we 

hear of teenagers maxing out their donations to the campaign of 

my Governor, Rick Perry. Just this week, the Milwaukee Journal 

Sentinel reported that Herman Cain’s campaign may have received 

illicit contributions from two Wisconsin corporations created solely 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

to funnel money to him. I am not asking the Commissioners to 

comment on any specific allegation, but I want to know what steps 

are being taken to ensure that our laws are enforced and any loopholes are indeed closed. 

These disturbing stories make the record setting level of obstruction and deadlock votes in the FEC all the more troubling. There 

has been a stunning increase in split deadlock votes at the FEC on 

enforcement votes. It is up more than 1,100 percent. As former 

FEC Chairman Trevor Potter said recently of the misguided Citizens United decision, quote, the Supreme Court upheld the disclosure requirements resoundingly. It is inaction in Washington that 

has given us no disclosure. The FEC is now deadlocked 3–3. Congress is deadlocked. 

In the first presidential election since Citizens United and 

SpeechNow, a fully functioning FEC is more important than ever, 

as shown by these chilling words spoken a few words again. Quote, 

groups like ours are potentially very dangerous to the political 

process. We could be a menace, yes. Ten independent expenditure 

groups, for example, could amass this great amount of money and 

defeat the point of accountability in politics. We could say whatever 

we want to say about an opponent of a Senator Smith and the Senator wouldn’t have to say anything. A group like ours could lie 

through its teeth and the candidate it helps will stay clean. 

Those words came from Terry Dolan, National Conservative Political Action Committee founder. Commissioners and fellow members of this committee, it is up to you and to us to make sure that 

Mr. Dolan’s menace is defamed and that proper disclosure requirements keep accountability in politics. 

And, Mr. Chairman, at this time, if appropriate, I would ask for 

unanimous consent to enter into the record testimony in written 

form from Common Cause, as well as from Democracy 21. 

Mr. HARPER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 72282A.001
6 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 72282A.002
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 72282A.003
8 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 72282A.004
9 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 72282A.005
10 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 72282A.006
11 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 72282A.007
12 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 72282A.008
13 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. And I yield back, sir. 

Mr. HARPER. Does any other member wish to be recognized for 

the purpose of making an opening statement? I would now like to 

introduce our witnesses. Commissioner Cynthia Bauerly is currently Chair of the Federal Election Commission. Previously she 

served as legislative director for Senator Charles Schumer and as 

counsel on the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee. And we 

thank you for being here. Commissioner Caroline Hunter is the 

Vice Chair of the FEC. She has been a Commissioner at the Election Assistance Commission and has worked in the White House, 

the Department of Homeland Security, and as deputy counsel for 

the Republican National Committee. Welcome. 

Commissioner Donald McGahn previously served as the head of 

a Washington based law practice specializing in election law. He 

was also general counsel to the National Republican Congressional 

Committee in the late 1990s, as well as counsel for the Illinois Republican Party. 

Commissioner Matthew Petersen was the Republican chief counsel to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and counsel 

to the Committee on House Administration. I would like to welcome Commissioner Petersen back to the committee for his first experience on the other side of the witness table at this committee. 

Commissioner Steven Walther was Vice Chair of the FEC in 

2008 and the Commission’s Chair in 2009. Prior to serving at the 

FEC, Mr. Walther practiced law for 35 years at his Nevada law 

firm. 

Commissioner Ellen Weintraub has been a member of the Commission since 2002. She has worked in private practice and was 

counsel to the House Ethics Committee where she was editor and 

chief during the creation of the House Ethics Manual. We thank 

you for a thankless job. 

Chair and Vice Chair, Commissioners, we thank you for all of 

you being here today. The committee has received your written testimony. And I will recognize the chair and vice chair each for 5 

minutes to present a summary of your submissions. To help you 

keep that time, of course you know we have a timing device near 

the witness table. The device will emit a green light for 4 minutes 

and then go to yellow with a minute to go. And at red, your time 

will have been over. 

And we will start with the Commissioner Bauerly. And we will 

start and we welcome you and please proceed. 

STATEMENTS OF THE HON. CYNTHIA L. BAUERLY, CHAIR, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; AND THE HON. CAROLINE C. 

HUNTER, VICE CHAIR, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA L. BAUERLY 

Ms. BAUERLY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Harper, 

Ranking Member Gonzalez, members of the subcommittee. I am 

pleased to be here on behalf of the Federal Election Commission to 

discuss the Commission’s operations and procedures. I appreciate 

the Subcommittee on Elections’ invitation to appear and the opportunity to present a few moments of opening remarks to highlight 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

certain aspects of the Commission’s longer written submission to 

you. 

I would like just for a moment, if I might, to introduce Mr. Tony 

Herman, Mr. Alec Palmer, our statutory officers at the Commission. Mr. Herman joined us recently and Mr. Palmer was recently 

our permanent Staff Director. I know your staffs have met with 

them and we appreciate your courtesy to them. 

When I was appointed to the FEC in 2008 along with the Vice 

Chair, Commissioners Petersen, Commissioner McGahn and Commissioner Walther who as you know had previously served a recess 

appointment, the Commission had lacked a quorum for approximately 6 months. When we joined Commissioner Weintraub at the 

Commission in July of 2008, my colleagues and I found ourselves 

with a significant backlog of enforcement audits and alternative 

dispute resolution matters waiting for us. Through a lot of hard 

work by everyone at the agency, particularly in the Offices of General Counsel and Compliance, we have returned to our appropriate 

processing times for such matters. 

As you know, a good share of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

is aimed at disclosure of Federal campaign activity. Following cases 

like Citizens United and SpeechNow, many new speakers and 

many recent speakers have become engaged in new ways. With this 

additional activity, the public increasingly relies on the disclosure 

provided by committees through the FEC in order to effectively respond to and participate in the political debate. 

Accordingly, the Commission strives to make campaign finance 

information readily available and useful to the public. Our Website 

provides disclosure of committee reports and independent expenditures and election agency communications in nearly real time as 

we receive that information. We have also improved the navigation 

of our Website to make the information easier to find. 

Of course, to be useful, the information needs to be accurate as 

well as timely. Accordingly, the FEC devotes a considerable portion 

of its staff to reviewing all reports. This is not a small task. In fiscal year 2011, the FEC reports analyst reviewed over 72,000 documents filed by committees. These same analysts work very closely 

with committees to answer their questions, assist them with filing 

before the deadlines occur and to resolve problems as they arise. 

In the last fiscal year, they answered 14,000 phone calls from committees to offer them assistance. They also work extended hours on 

filing deadlines to make sure they are there when committees need 

them most. The Commission also works hard to provide information and training to those who file with the FEC. To better serve 

filers, the Commission is developing a dedicated Web page that will 

answer questions our communications specialists also fielded over 

11,000 phone calls. 

The FEC also continues to hold regional conferences so we may 

get out and provide education and information to those who are 

complying. I find that participating in these conferences is an important way for me to get to know and meet treasurers and reporting personnel for committees. 

And the FEC continues to innovate in ways to reach more committees and filers with this information. For example, in order to 

provide more cost effective training for grass root organizations and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

candidates, the FEC has instituted a series of lower cost 1-day 

seminars and workshops focused for a particular group or a legal 

issue. 

In addition to disclosure and education, the Commission’s major 

responsibilities surround the administration and interpretation of 

the FECA. Public confidence in our elections depends not only on 

transparency but on the assurance of those who participate in our 

Federal election system do so within the rules established by Congress. In recent years, the Commission has made significant 

progress in processing enforcement cases and audits more timely. 

For certain reporting violations, the FEC’s alternative dispute resolution program and its administrative fines program has been very 

effective. And we appreciate this committee’s work on the administrative fines program and hope that the committee will again work 

to extend or make permanent that program in 2013. 

We anticipate a very busy election cycle in 2012 and we are prepared for it. The FEC has invested in our infrastructure at the 

Commission to ensure that our servers can handle both the volume 

and the number of reports that we expect in 2012. And of course 

all of this is taking place in a time of quickly changing legal landscapes. And where we can, the Commission is providing its information as soon as we can without going through the full process 

of a rulemaking. 

Recently, the Commission issued some guidance in response to a 

court settlement in the Carey v. FEC decision. Obviously additional 

rulemakings will be necessary to update forms and provide full 

guidance, but we were able to issue specific guidance to committees 

who want to follow that court decision and we did the same thing 

following the Citizens United in 2010. 

I see my time has expired. I look forward to answering all of your 

questions, and we stand ready to assist the committee in any of its 

future requests. 

[The statement of Ms. Bauerly follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 72282A.009
17 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 72282A.010
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 72282A.011
19 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 72282A.012
20 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 72282A.013
21 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 72282A.014
22 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 72282A.015
23 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 72282A.016
24 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 72282A.017
25 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 72282A.018
26 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 72282A.019
27 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 72282A.020
28 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 72282A.021
29 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 72282A.022
30 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 72282A.023
31 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 72282A.024
32 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 72282A.025
33 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 72282A.026
34 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 72282A.027
35 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 72282A.028
36 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 72282A.029
37 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 72282A.030
38 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 72282A.031
39 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 72282A.032
40 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 72282A.033
41 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 72282A.034
42 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. I will now recognize the vice 

chair, Caroline Hunter, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CAROLINE C. HUNTER 

Ms. HUNTER. Thank you. Chairman Harper, Ranking Member 

Gonzalez, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

here today to speak with you about the Federal Election Commission. 

Since members of the Commission last appeared before Congress 

several years ago, there have been significant changes in campaign 

finance law. Courts at all levels have stricken down laws regulating political speech, most notably in the landmark Citizens 

United decision. I would like to use this opportunity to supplement 

the agency’s joint testimony by updating the subcommittee on the 

FEC’s efforts to comply with these significant rulings. Additionally, 

I would like to share some updates on the new processes and procedures we have implemented at the Commission in recent years. 

In Citizens United, as you know, the Supreme Court struck down 

the Federal Election Campaign Act’s prohibition on corporations 

making independent expenditures in electioneering communications. In response, the FEC released a statement in February 2010 

confirming it would no longer enforce the statutory provision and 

the agency’s regulations prohibiting IEs and ECs by corporations 

and labor organizations. The FEC also announced it intended to 

initiate a rulemaking to address various other regulatory provisions implicated by the decision. 

At two FEC open meetings in January and June of this year, the 

Commission considered an alternative draft notice of proposed rulemaking. I regret we have yet to remove the regulations related to 

the statutory provisions stricken by the Supreme Court; however, 

I anticipate the Commission may be able to initiate a formal rulemaking in the near future. 

Following Citizens United, the D.C. Circuit Court held in 

SpeechNow that FECA’s source prohibitions and amount limitations on contributions were unconstitutional as to those political 

committees that make only independent expenditures. In two advisory opinions, the FEC confirmed it would act in accordance with 

the SpeechNow decision. 

Subsequently, the National Defense PAC asked the FEC for an 

advisory opinion confirming that as a political committee that 

made direct contributions to Federal candidates, it could also accept unlimited corporate funds to make independent expenditures 

if it establishes a separate bank account for such purposes. After 

the Commission deadlocked on this issue and the PAC sued the 

agency in Carey v. FEC, the District Court recently ruled in 

NDPAC’s favor and the FEC agreed to a stipulated judgment and 

consent order. 

As the Chair mentioned, last month the FEC issued a public 

statement confirming this posture applies to all similarly situated 

political committees. Just as the FEC was created to ensure more 

transparency in the political process, we believe it has also been 

beneficial for the agency to operate with more transparency. To 

that end, the Commission has implemented several new reforms 

over the past 3 years in the enforcement and policymaking funcVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:26 Jan 28, 2012 Jkt 072282 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A282.XXX A282

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

tions. On the enforcement side, we have put in place a procedure 

for committees that are the subject of inquiries from our Reports 

Analysis Division or audit proceedings to raise unsettled legal 

questions directly with the Commissioners. We also passed a directive allowing for RAD and the Audit Division to raise those questions on their own to the Commission. By having these Commissioners resolve these issues on the front end, we believe we can 

avoid lengthy proceedings that are expensive for both the committee and the Commission. 

In the audit process we have also implemented hearings for committees to present oral arguments and to respond to questions from 

the Commissioners prior to the approval of final audit reports. Before the Reports Analysis or Audit Divisions refer matters to the 

office of general counsel for enforcement, we have also required the 

basis of such referrals to be provided to respondents and to allow 

them an opportunity to respond. The FECA requires respondents 

to be notified when a complaint from outside the agency is filed 

and to be given a chance to respond. And we thought it was only 

fair that the respondents in internally generated matters also be 

informed of the charges against them. On the policy side, we have 

also implemented a procedure whereby requesters and advisory 

opinions are given the opportunity to appear before the Commission to answer our questions about the issues they have presented. 

The fairness and efficiency interests running through all of these 

procedural reforms reflect our concern that the campaign finance 

laws and the FEC’s processes should not be unduly burdensome on 

those Americans who are engaged in the most basic of civic activities. 

I appreciate the Chair’s remarks this morning, and while we 

think we have made significant accomplishments in this end in response to the hearing that was held here several years ago, we do 

have other things we can do. And we appreciate your bringing the 

spotlight to the enforcement process and look forward to talking to 

you about that and other matters. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Hunter follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 72282A.035
45 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 72282A.036
46 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 72282A.037
47 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 72282A.038
48 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 72282A.039
49 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 72282A.040
50 

Mr. HARPER. We now have time for committee members to ask 

questions of the witnesses. Each member is allotted 5 minutes to 

question the witnesses. Obviously we have the timing device there 

to help us keep track of that and we will alternate between the majority and the minority. To begin with, I will recognize myself for 

5 minutes, and I will start with some questions dealing with the 

transparency and the manuals, of course, that we are very interested in. 

At a January 20, 2011 Commission meeting, Commissioner 

Weintraub said we don’t believe in doing things in secret. Each of 

you please tell me if you think the FEC should release its enforcement manuals and penalty guidelines to the public. And if not, why 

not, and we will start with you, Commissioner Walther. 

Mr. WALTHER. Thank you very much. And thank you for having 

us here today. I think this is a very helpful process for all of us. 

And it is overdue. Since I have been on the Commission, we have 

not had an opportunity to have an exchange like this and I think 

it is good for us and it is hopefully helpful. I fully support, fully 

support making public the RAD review policy, enforcement policy 

and a penalty schedule. I am completely in favor of that. I think 

it has been overdue. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Weintraub. 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARPER. And I hope I pronounced your name at least somewhat close. 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. Weintraub. It isn’t that hard. 

Mr. HARPER. Okay. Good. 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

the shout-out. I appreciate your quoting me on the values of transparency. I am a firm believer in them. I actually have been advocating for years that we should disclose our penalty schedule. I 

think one complication is that we don’t always agree on what that 

penalty schedule should say. We have had many debates in executive session when we are trying individual cases where Commissioners are not agreed on what the penalty levels really ought to 

be. I have long advocated that we ought to have a penalty schedule 

and that we ought to make it public. And then when the Commission departs from it, it ought to have to justify those departures in 

terms of mitigating and aggravating factors that would justify that 

departure. 

I think there may be some confusion about what the enforcement 

manual is. The document that I think of as the enforcement manual is a large, cumbersome, rather out of date collection of memoranda that are not—a number of them have been superseded. I 

think it might actually be more confusing than helpful to disclose 

that particular document. It is not actually in its current form 

being actively used. It is sort of a historical document, but doesn’t 

necessarily reflect what we are doing today. 

I think that one effort that Commissioner Walther spearheaded, 

which is far more useful, is that we did create a description of our 

enforcement process and that is posted on the Website and it does 

go into the different stages of the process. And I think that actually 

is much more helpful than to put on the public record something 

that is outdated and not really in use. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Commissioner. Chair Bauerly. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our microphones are 

automatic. So forgive me. I agree with Commissioner Weintraub 

that the effort that we undertook a couple of years ago to put onto 

the Website a comprehensive guide for our enforcement process actually reflects the most current documented enforcement guide that 

we do have. We do as I understand have a document that hasn’t 

been updated that existed in the Enforcement Division prior, certainly prior to my arrival at the Commission. But again just a few 

years ago, we did undertake a documentation of our current process so that people who are going through could understand all of 

the different nuances. 

I also would support making our penalty guidelines public, but 

I do think that we would need to, again as Commissioner 

Weintraub pointed out, there are some disagreements over what 

that penalty guideline should look like. In addition, of course, the 

Commission is required by the statute to conciliate with people who 

are in the enforcement process. So of course the end result in a conciliation agreement may not be reflective of the schedule at the outset. So I think that that, unlike some other enforcement agencies 

who do not have the requirement to conciliate for civil penalties 

but could actually issue and impose a fine on someone in their 

process, we are differently situated in that way. So I would just 

want to make sure in whatever form we did that we didn’t cause 

confusion over different penalties that were resulting in conciliation agreements because the Commission is required to conciliate 

under the act. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. Vice Chair Hunter. 

Ms. HUNTER. Thank you. As my colleagues have pointed out, 

there is some disagreement with respect to the amounts in the penalty schedule. And I think this would be a good opportunity for us 

to revisit the amount and take an opportunity to determine what 

is the best penalty for whatever violation and perhaps we could 

provide a range to accommodate for the conciliation portion that 

the Chair mentioned. In addition, I think it is important that we 

maintain some discretion to depart from the schedule. And I agree 

with Commissioner Weintraub, we should be able to explain when 

we do that departure. But I think we should maintain the ability 

to do so. 

Mr. HARPER. Commissioner McGahn. 

Mr. MCGAHN. Thank you. To answer your question directly, 

there is no reason why at least parts of the RAD manual could be 

public and at least part of how the penalties are done could be 

more public. And if I could take a minute to elaborate on what I 

mean, because it is a question that raises many, many issues and 

issues I encountered when I was first appointed to the Commission. 

As a practitioner who represented a number of politicians, parties, 

vendors, everyone perhaps members of this committee from time to 

time, when I was appointed to the Commission, I really wanted to 

see these secret books. RAD does have a manual. RAD is the Reports Analysis Division. I apologize for speaking in Beltway acronym, but I have fallen into that habit. And there are parts of it 

that I think are part of the enforcement processes of the Federal 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

Election Commission. As part of the enforcement process, I think 

that is something that ought to remain confidential. 

There are parts that may constitute a form of secret law. If there 

is secret law, that ought to be public. Right now the current manual I think is a hybrid of the two. So to simply turn it over in total 

I think would cause some issues because I think we would be giving away some of the internal deliberative process privilege or 

some of the enforcement triggers. 

The penalty schedule is something I have heard about before I 

was appointed and I wanted to see the penalty schedule and I envisioned there was this magic chart on the wall, sort of a sentencing 

guideline. There really isn’t. It depends on the case. It depends on 

the history of the issue. And it depends on a number of frankly factors as to what penalty applies. The Commission has even before 

I was appointed to the Commission, has done quite a bit to make 

it a little bit more public in certain ways. For example, there is a 

policy for sua sponte submissions. If you know you have a problem, 

you can turn yourself in and this policy says you will get a discount 

on the penalty. What the penalty will be, what the starting point 

is, you really don’t know, but you can get 50 percent, 75 percent. 

Increased activity. There is a policy on that from 2007, again before 

I was appointed, that talks about what the penalty would be and 

gives a sense of the formula. 

Congress has put in the administrative fines program so you 

know in certain issues what the fine will be. One thing that has 

happened, however, is there have been cases where it just doesn’t 

seem fair to impose that penalty on a first-time candidate or what 

not. The Commission through regulation has taken the position 

that they are somewhat handcuffed and they don’t have a choice 

in the matter. It would be nice legislatively if we were told, yes, 

we do still have discretion in admin fines. 

But there have been things that have made penalties public. 

What I think would help making public is not some magic chart 

because there really isn’t a magic chart, but the method used to 

calculate some of these penalties. Is it 10 percent of the amount at 

issue, is it 20 percent, is it 50 percent? The counterargument that 

I have heard, which is somewhat persuasive, is people may think 

that it is a cost of doing business; and if they can predict the fine, 

it may encourage them to not comply. I am not sure I buy it because frankly I found most people try to comply. Certainly you are 

going to have some bad actors that intentionally try to funnel 

money to campaigns through a back door and what not. But my 

concern has always been the first-time candidate, the unsophisticated political player getting caught up in the processes of the FEC 

and they get caught up on this fine calendar chart. 

And my final point with the penalties, and the Vice Chair talked 

about this a little bit, the idea of discretion. There are really ways 

to do penalties. One is on sort of a sentencing guideline mentality 

where everyone gets treated the same once you have decided there 

is a violation. But sometimes the same is not really fair. To me I 

think the Commission needs to maintain some discretion in what 

the penalties are, to look at the totality of the circumstances. Is it 

a first-time candidate? Is this someone who is a sophisticated player or not a sophisticated player? What is the governmental interest 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

in the problem? If it is corporate money to a campaign, every court 

in the land from the supremes on down has said the law is at its 

most urgent application there because it gets at the heart of corruption or the appearance thereof. If it is a one-time report from 

a political committee that has already disclosed the information but 

forgot some technicality on a subsequent report, that really 

shouldn’t be treated the same even if it is the same dollar amount. 

So that is my long-winded explanation, is I am sort of in favor 

of in public, but it is not as easy as just handing you a book. 

Mr. HARPER. And Commissioner Petersen. 

Mr. PETERSEN. I agree with what most of my colleagues here 

have said. I think that the method by which the Commission determines its penalties should be more transparent. And I think that 

this exercise as has been pointed out, there would need to be some 

agreement as to what those methods are. There has at times been 

disagreement amongst us. But whatever we did release would have 

to acknowledge the fact that there does need to be flexibility built 

into the process. And as to the issues regarding the enforcement 

and the RAD manual, I do think that more can be disclosed by the 

Commission with the understanding that there are certain parts of 

the process that are interwoven into our enforcement program that 

under the statute need to remain confidential. 

Mr. HARPER. I thank you. And now I will yield to the ranking 

member, Mr. Gonzalez, for his questions. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. 

The question will be to the chairwoman, Chair Bauerly. The ranking member of this committee wrote to you back on March first regarding the proposed bill where you basically assumed the responsibilities of the EAC, and you responded—I want to make sure— 

yes, it was signed by you—responded in a letter dated March 16th 

in which you obviously say you have looked at the bill, you could 

assume the additional duties, some of which were under your jurisdiction in years previous. 

And you go on to say in your letter that you would determine 

which of the responsibilities could be assigned to current or new 

employees of the FEC and which would be carried out under contracts with private entities, outsourcing. Any strategy—and I will 

read from the letter. Any strategy to meet these new responsibilities would require additional resources. 

Do you have a specific—at this time, could you tell us specifically 

in the way of expenses, additional expenses that would have to be 

met requiring additional funding for the FEC, if, in fact, it took 

over some of the duties? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Thank you, Ranking Member Gonzalez. We have 

not undertaken any comprehensive—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If you could get closer to the microphone. Thank 

you. 

Ms. BAUERLY. My apologies again. We have not undertaken a 

comprehensive examination of the EAC’s current budget to determine what their spending versus what we—but obviously if there 

were—there are significant EAC responsibilities, some of which 

were established in its original legislation, some of which have 

been added over time, including in 2009, important obligations 

under the MOVE Act. So there are certainly important programs 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

at the EAC and, as I understand the legislation, would continue 

should the transfer to the FEC happen. 

I understand the CBO has prepared an estimate based on their 

review of the current EAC budget. I don’t have any basis with 

which to quibble with the CBO’s estimate. I do assure the committee, were we to be charged with these responsibilities, we would 

of course conduct them in the most cost effective manner. But 

again, there certainly are significant obligations, including some 

contracts that exist at the EAC that I understand would need to 

continue given the programmatic requirements, and I believe the 

CBO has estimated approximately 20 individuals would be needed 

to accommodate some of those obligations. 

Again, to the extent we could find some space within our own 

current personnel, we would certainly do that. But we would certainly not want to shortchange any of those important responsibilities that exist currently at the—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But you are not in a position today to say with 

a specific number what it would take for you in the way of additional funding so that we can determine if there are really any savings which is the objective of us proposing things to the supercommittee. I mean, you can’t do that today? 

Ms. BAUERLY. I cannot. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. The next question—and it really is a 

yes or no and maybe we can expand on it in a minute. But a couple 

of remarks regarding transparency and the concern this committee 

has on the workings of the FEC. I think it is important for the sake 

of trust just in government and the election process and such that 

what you do to the extent that can be public is transparent. But 

I also believe of equal or greater importance is what you are considering. 

Do you have sufficient data, do you have sufficient information, 

are there sufficient disclosure requirements that allow you to make 

measured determinations as far as who is spending the money, 

how they are spending the money, is there a violation? I think that 

Commissioner McGahn said, you know, people coming in through 

the back door. Well, with Citizens United and such and the relaxation in my opinion based on judicial decree, we don’t have to come, 

a lot of people don’t have to come through the back door anymore. 

They just come through the front door. The question is can we at 

least figure out and identify who is coming in through the front 

door. 

In my opinion, you don’t have that information presently before 

you and I think it is going to require some sort of legislation. The 

question would be yes or no to the individuals, starting with Commissioner Walther, and that is if disclosure is important, how is it 

best effectuated, are current disclosure requirements sufficient to 

carry out the FEC’s mission? 

Mr. WALTHER. Thank you. I don’t think—I am not too sure exactly what you meant by us getting the information. If you are suggesting that we collect information to be able to assist where the 

money is coming from, where we see violations, that probably 

would be helpful and that is something that we have not really 

done. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

Secondly, no, the statutory and the regulatory framework does 

not in my opinion begin to provide the kind of transparency that 

we should have in the aftermath of Citizens United. The very fact 

that for all of these decades we have had regulation based upon the 

statute that we have upheld to the best of the—I think that should 

have been upheld to the best of our ability—is now gone. There is 

a huge vacuum there that raises questions that we have discussed 

and that Congress obviously has discussed and has been unable to 

reach agreement on. 

But I do think that we have fallen down on what we could have 

done with respect to our regulations. We have had—at least prepared—two drafts amongst ourselves on what kind of information 

we thought would be necessary for transparency, for corporations 

that do not have foreign control, and to take a look at what we now 

have to look at to see how we can make sure that foreign investment to—in our political system—is prohibited. We need to do a lot 

of that. One draft is much more specific than the other, and I think 

the very least we could have done is to make both of those available for public comment and we have not been willing to do that 

yet. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I am going to ask with the chairman’s indulgence, I am just going to restrict the question to a yes or no and 

it is going to be whether current disclosure requirements are adequate or do we need to improve on those. And maybe we will have 

another go round and you will be able to again expand on your remarks. Yes or no, is it sufficient presently given Citizens United? 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. No. 

Ms. BAUERLY. No, I don’t believe so. 

Ms. HUNTER. Yes, in order to accomplish—sorry. The laws are 

sufficient in order to follow the mission of the agency as it is. Obviously it is at the discretion of Congress to amend the laws. 

Mr. MCGAHN. Yes. 

Mr. PETERSEN. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. And I ask unanimous 

consent to allow Mr. Lungren, the chairman of the full committee, 

to participate in this subcommittee hearing. Without objection, it is 

so ordered. 

At this time I will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Schock, for questions. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the Commissioners for being here today. First let me state in reaction to 

the chairman’s question and your responses that I support the 

chairman’s request for full disclosure of this manual and while I 

can appreciate that each of the Commissioners may not want for 

their deliberations behind their decision making to be made public, 

let me assure you as a candidate for office who becomes a victim 

of your decision or at least the recipient of your decision, we want 

full disclosure. And as uncomfortable as that might be for you to 

allow the public and for every candidate for Federal office to understand that, I can assure you that our constituents make no bones 

about the fact that they expect us to know the rules and, quite 

frankly, do not understand why if in a case a Member of Congress 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

or a candidate for Congress would not be following the rules or 

would receive some kind of statement suggesting otherwise. 

Second, I have a whole host of questions. So I hope that we will 

get a couple of rounds if possible. First I would like to find out 

within the FEC who decides which cases the FEC litigates. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Thank you, Representative Schock. The FEC’s 

Litigation Division makes recommendations to the Commission. If 

I might step back for a moment. Much of the litigation comes to 

us. The FEC is often the defendant in lawsuits. In terms of initiating lawsuits with respect to perhaps an enforcement action, that 

is the decision of the Commission. 

Mr. SCHOCK. So the Commission actually votes? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Yes. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Based on the litigation department’s recommendation? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Yes. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Okay. Back in 1999, the FEC adopted a policy that 

the Commission would enforce section 100.22(b) of its regulation in 

every circuit except the First and Fourth where it was found to be 

unconstitutional. I found that a bit puzzling. And my question is 

simply whether or not there should be a difference for the First 

Amendment rights depending on whether you live where the FEC 

has lost a case and what the thinking was behind your judgment 

on partially enforcing that section of your code. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Representative Schock, I was not at the Commission at that point in time, so I cannot speak to—and actually none 

of us were, so we couldn’t speak to the specifics of what those—that 

set of Commissioners were thinking. In general, Federal—— 

Mr. SCHOCK. Let me ask you. Is that still the Commission’s position? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Post the McConnell decision, that is no longer the 

Commission’s view of that, as we indicated in our submissions to 

you. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Okay. You stated that the Commission does not believe it is appropriate to request information beyond what is required by law. If this is the Commission’s policy, I would ask why 

the Reports Analysis Division continues to send out requests to 

candidates asking for information entities are under no legal obligation to provide. 

Ms. BAUERLY. The Commission seeks further information from 

committees through what is called the request for information, an 

RFAI, when reports analysts on the face of report have questions 

on what might appear on the face of that report in terms of a need 

for additional information or for some clarification. So reports are 

only sent where there is a legal basis to do so. And in those letters, 

the legal basis for seeking this information is provided in the letter 

sent to the committees. So we only ask for information that is required. And again RFAIs are sent where on the face of the report 

there seems to be some discrepancy, some mathematical error, perhaps contributor information is not provided. We ask the committees for additional information. 

Mr. SCHOCK. So if you ask for additional information, I understand you are asking—I guess the follow-up question to that would 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

be what are the due process rates the reporting entities have when 

an RFAI is sent to them. 

Ms. BAUERLY. If I might use—make sure I understand your question, there wouldn’t be I don’t think any technical due process 

rights that—because there are no consequences of not filing—not 

responding to the RFAI itself. There may be further—there may 

be—to the extent that if there are problems that are not able to 

be resolved, then perhaps there might be some additional process 

within the agency down the line. But the first—the first thing that 

will happen is the analysts and the committee may discuss any 

issues. If, for example, what is missing is contributor information 

and the committee lets our analysts know that they have used 

their best efforts to collect that information from their contributors, 

contributors simply did not want to provide it, then that is all that 

the Commission would require, is the best efforts to collect that 

type of information. 

So many of these issues are resolved very easily in terms of just 

making sure. It may be that something got reported on a line that 

was incorrect. The vast majority of these letters are based on discrepancies on the face of the report that are very easily either 

amended or resolved in that way. 

If a committee would like to ask for the Commission to get involved in a potential legal question that is raised, the Commission 

fairly recently adopted a procedure where it may do so. So if a committee receives a letter and it thinks that it does not have an obligation to provide that information, it may file a request with the 

Commission for the Commission’s determination of that. It may 

present its arguments to the Commission in terms of what it thinks 

its reporting obligations might be. So it does have an opportunity 

to address those issues directly with the Commission. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. HARPER. I will now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, 

Mr. Rokita, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank everyone for their testimony here today. I want to start off with what 

Commissioner McGahn was talking about where he said it was not 

as simple as handing over a book. I want to make sure I understand your testimony the right way. Is that because no document 

exists or is it because, the discretion you and Commissioner Hunter 

and others talked about, you can’t just hand over a book of these 

penalties? 

Mr. MCGAHN. If I could ask you a question. 

Mr. ROKITA. No. It is our hearing. 

Mr. MCGAHN. Which one are you talking about? Are you talking 

about the RAD manual, the enforcement manual or the penalties? 

Mr. ROKITA. Both. Real quick. 

Mr. MCGAHN. Okay. There is an enforcement manual. As others 

have said, it is somewhat out of date. 

Mr. ROKITA. The penalties—— 

Mr. MCGAHN. Right. And if it was up to me, I would hand it to 

you right now, but I don’t have it with me. And it would probably 

take four votes to give you the enforcement manual. 

Mr. ROKITA. So you say it is not as simple as handing over? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

Mr. MCGAHN. The RAD manual is the one that is not as simple 

as handing over because the RAD manual includes essentially— 

part of it is directives to the staff, that if there is an issue over a 

certain dollar amount, refer to the Commission, the Commission 

wants to see it. It doesn’t mean you have broken the law. It just 

prioritizes what the Commission wants to see and when it wants 

to see it. 

Mr. ROKITA. Then why is it so secretive? 

Mr. MCGAHN. Well, because the dollar amounts at issue—the argument that I have heard is that the dollar amounts will let people 

know, well, if your mistake is less than 50 grand or 10 grand, everyone will have $49,000 mistakes so they won’t get referred. I 

don’t really buy it. I think at the end of the day people have better 

things to do at their campaign headquarters than to reverse engineer their FEC reports to avoid referral. 

Mr. ROKITA. I would agree with that. 

Mr. MCGAHN. But there are other things in the RAD manual 

that I think are part of the enforcement process and you get into 

a situation where there is the confidentiality of a specific enforcement matter and there is also the protection that the agency has 

of its enforcement priorities. So right now it is all in one book. 

Mr. ROKITA. Let me respond to that. I used to run an agency, 

both an election agency and a securities agency. So I understand 

the need to—as others on this panel may want to comment on. I 

understand the need to protect investigative material and the public policy behind that. That is different than how you intend to enforce something. And it is different for this reason. Are we going 

to be a country of laws or are we going to be a country of men? 

Meaning are we going to be consistent? Are the people in this country, including the candidates of this country, going to have a fair 

hearing? Discretion or not, or are we going to be a country of men 

where discretion can be used, over used and abused? 

This is especially important when you are talking about a bureaucracy that is unelected. It is ultimately important when we are 

talking about the business that each of you and your staffs are in, 

which is protecting a free and fair election. And so I think the attitude that I am hearing from this agency as a whole, as represented 

by each of you, and I say this, Mr. Gonzalez, in the most bipartisan 

way possible, none of you are that important that you can’t disclose 

what you are doing as a public business. And I think we all ought 

to get over that. 

I will yield back the rest of my time and expect a second round. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHOCK. If the chairman would yield, I just want to respond 

to Mr. Rokita’s request for the rest of us to weigh in on this. 

Mr. HARPER. Certainly. 

Mr. SCHOCK. My only response would be this. 

Many of you were involved with FEC election law in some form 

prior to coming to your Commission spot. Assuming that your Commission term expires and you go back into the private sector, you 

may or may not choose to go back into that profession. Why should 

you be privy to information on the process in which this Commission has made decisions that your peers and competitors in this industry are not privy to? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

Taking us as candidates and officeholders out of this, I would 

suggest that it is only fair that the people who represent us and 

the industries that many of you were involved with prior to your 

Commission service be given the same information that many of 

you will have when your term of service is up. 

Mr. HARPER. At this time I will recognize the gentleman from 

Florida, Mr. Nugent, for questioning. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate the 

Commission, all of your attendance here today. 

I am a little troubled. My past experience has been in law enforcement for 36-plus years, and I understand protecting investigative techniques and how you go about investigations. I clearly understand that. But what I don’t understand is the way you are 

guarding as it relates to enforcement measures or RAD or penalties. Because what I keep hearing across the board from many of 

you is that the enforcement manual is out of date. So I don’t understand how you even operate if your enforcement manual is out of 

date. I don’t understand that you don’t have at least a penalty 

manual at least describing what the penalties are. 

And I certainly do understand discretion, and you need to have 

that, particularly as you related, Mr. McGahn, as it relates to a 

first-time candidate. Somebody who has made a simple mistake I 

don’t think rises to the same level. I think you need to have discretion. 

So I guess I am troubled by the fact, and so what I want to 

hear—and I will let any member answer this. How do you—what 

is your plan on rectifying the fact that the manual is out of date 

and that there is—doesn’t sound like there is a clear penalty manual at all? 

Any one of you would—Mr. McGahn. 

Mr. MCGAHN. I will start, I guess. 

First, I want to make clear I don’t want to be portrayed as an 

apologist for hiding documents. On the contrary, I have been, I 

think, one of the prime movers in much of what has been made 

public. I am merely articulating the arguments that I have heard 

in defense. 

It has been the position of the Commission forever and a day 

that these things are secret. Same questions you are raising are 

the same questions I have raised. I am not sure I am convinced of 

the answers I have gotten, either. But as a deliberative body of six 

commissioners where it takes four to change what has been a longstanding practice, you know, I am a commissioner, so I have to give 

you the Commission long-term view. 

As far as the enforcement manual, Commissioner Walther, it has 

already been talked about his initiative to at least make that more 

public and at least have a summary of how the process works I 

think is a good first step. 

Second, my understanding is our recently hired new general 

counsel is looking into this to at least update it, and then from 

there I would certainly support making something public. You 

know, as the chair rattled off, DOJ, most law enforcement have 

some sort of prosecutor’s manual. 

Mr. NUGENT. Right. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

Mr. MCGAHN. And even if there is—the problem ultimately is 

when you keep these things secret. Not only does it give people 

who have worked at the agency an edge, quite frankly, who then 

go off and do other things, but it creates a problem in the eyes of 

the public where you think there is maybe something secret. And 

even if there isn’t, you feel like there is some hidden process or 

some hidden rule that you don’t see. 

Mr. NUGENT. Right. 

Mr. MCGAHN. There is a lot of legal advice that goes on between 

the general counsel’s office and the reports analysis division and 

the audits division when these letters go out. That is something 

that is not particularly public. In fact, when I asked for it as a commissioner, I had trouble getting it, because it is not the sort of 

thing that an agency that has been around for decades thought to 

keep in one place. 

So we are making a lot of strides to get it together. It is just 

these sorts of questions hadn’t been asked in years. The FEC sometimes becomes a little insular and doesn’t really think about sometimes how the public views what it does. And there is a number 

of commissioners at this table today committed to trying to correct 

that, and we have gone a long way to doing that, but there is a 

lot more work to do. 

So I don’t have a good answer as to why this stuff is secret. I 

am just giving you the answers I have been given. 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay. The chair, I believe you wanted to—— 

Ms. BAUERLY. I think that as Commissioner McGahn pointed 

out, this set of Commissioners has changed some of the processes 

and procedures. And, again, the enforcement guide that we did put 

on the Web site was an attempt to start to update some of that so 

that there is something that would be more useful to the public, 

frankly, than handing out documents that are outdated. 

With respect to—your other question I think was about civil penalties. I think that there is a lot of agreement about putting out 

the formulas that go into it. But, again, as Commissioner McGahn 

pointed out earlier, there are different types of violations. Every 

enforcement matter looks a little bit different because there may be 

three or four violations in one matter and there might be one in 

another. And so if we were to take that step, I think we would just 

want to make sure that we are not creating any confusion amongst 

the public or those who are working on committees to ensure, and 

I think that can be accomplished. That would just be the caveat 

that we would need to make sure that we explain that, and everyone understands the parameters of what that formula would look 

like and that the Commission does retain the discretion in certain 

instances to make changes from that. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you. 

I see my time has expired. 

Mr. HARPER. And I will now recognize the gentleman from California, the chair of the full committee, Mr. Lungren. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

Maybe one of the reasons we haven’t had these issues come up 

as to why you should disclose or not disclose is that we haven’t had 

an oversight hearing in this committee since 2003. Maybe if these 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

questions had been asked, we might have had some decisions, and 

we might have found out why. So I thank you for this. 

I try and look at this from the standpoint of an average American who wants to run for office, and the first thing now we know 

is the tremendous hurdles in terms of the cost of running for office. 

And one of the costs is, first of all, you have got to hire an accountant; and, secondly, you have got to hire an attorney to make sure 

you don’t run afoul of the laws. That is a burden we accept as a 

result of Supreme Court decisions on either corruption or the appearance of corruption and money. But if done improperly, it chills 

political speech and chills political participation. 

It is daunting for someone who decides they want to run for office to all of a sudden say, oh, my Lord, I have to figure out what 

the Federal Government laws are; I have to go find out what the 

FEC stands for. And so I would just say to you, I think disclosure 

ought to be—you ought to resolve doubt in favor of disclosure as 

opposed to nondisclosure. 

And on the idea of a manual that governs your enforcement, I 

do not see how you have a leg to stand on, frankly, for not disclosing. In one of the most difficult decisions you have to make as 

a prosecutor on the State level, that is a capital punishment case, 

the guidelines are set up, it is reviewed by every DA, and every 

DA’s office in California has a manual as to how they do it. It is 

known to people. Now, the internal discussions on a specific case 

are not, but the manual with respect to how you go about making 

that decision as to whether you are going to seek the death penalty 

or not is known. It is known to everybody. 

We allow murderers to know what it is they are facing. Shouldn’t 

we allow Members or prospective Members of Congress to know 

what they are facing from an enforcement standpoint? I mean, I 

appreciate what you are saying, but can anyone give me a valid argument, not about the internal discussions with respect to a specific case but the enforcement manual, that is that component of 

it which is similar to the Justice Department and similar to the 

U.S. Department of Labor as to why you should not allow that information out. 

Yes, you say to the public, and I understand that broad word, but 

how about to average members of the public who are thinking 

about the possibility of running for office and thinking about what 

they are going to face and thinking about how do I make sure I 

don’t make a mistake. And one of the ways I figure that out is I 

look at their enforcement manual to see how they make their decision with respect to enforcement. 

Can any of you help me out as to why that should not be made 

public as soon as possible? 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I don’t want to speak 

for my colleagues, but I think what you are hearing from us is that 

we agree that this should be—that information about our enforcement process should be made public, and we have taken the first 

step in that in putting the enforcement guide on the Web site. 

I think what is also important to note is that the regulations, the 

statute that governs what the agency does in terms of what candidates or committees need to do in terms of their filing, of course, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

is very public. This one aspect of our process has been less public 

in the past than it is now. 

We, again, as Commissioner McGahn pointed out, we are working towards updating all of this so that we can make something 

public. The Commission in terms of we—the enforcement manual 

that I think we refer to in our submission to you is not the thing 

that holds the penalty guideline. The calculations for the penalties, 

that is a separate set of documents. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would hope—— 

Ms. BAUERLY. That is something that we—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I would hope that the manual that is as 

similar to or comparable to what the Department of Justice has 

and the Department of Labor has, I would hope that you would 

make it as transparent as they do. 

Now, let me ask you about the RFAIs. In terms of the Commission, do you make those requests public or are those requests made 

only to the campaign of the candidate? 

Ms. BAUERLY. The RFAIs that are sent to committees are also 

put onto the Web site. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you see no problem with putting that out 

there and getting that information out, which could potentially 

taint a candidate’s reputation, but, at the same time, you have difficulty making as transparent the decisionmaking rules that you 

use in terms of enforcement. See, I don’t understand that connection. 

Look, I have never been mistreated by the FEC. I have no bone 

to pick with you folks. Luckily, I have been able to hire good attorneys to keep me ahead of the game and to not have any problems. 

But the impact of actions taken by the Commission can be very 

deleterious to the reputation of a candidate and his or her committee just by virtue of the fact that you have made a request. And 

I am not telling you don’t make requests. I am just saying I hope 

you understand that from the standpoint of a candidate who is 

standing out there and all of a sudden some press guy says, hey, 

I know you have just had this RFAI—they don’t say that—they just 

made this request for additional information. And you look at it 

and you say, gee, that is not information required by law, and all 

of a sudden you are already digging yourself out of a hole where 

you may have done nothing wrong. 

So all I am saying is I hope you appreciate the tremendous impact you have on people who may be doing nothing other than trying to express their First Amendment rights in a way that allows 

them to at least run for office as a means of articulating their point 

of view. And I thank you for your work because I know you probably don’t get a whole lot of people patting you on the back for your 

work. So thank you. 

Mr. HARPER. I ask unanimous consent to enter the following documents into the record: three letters submitted by lawyers who frequently appear before the Commission describing the impact of the 

FEC’s failure to disclose materials governing its enforcement process, an editorial from the Wall Street Journal regarding the FEC, 

a list of enforcement manuals made available to the public by other 

Federal agencies, the list of questions that this committee sent to 

the FEC and its written responses. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

Are there any objections? 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 72282A.041
65 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 72282A.042
66 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 72282A.043
67 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 72282A.044
68 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 72282A.045
69 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 72282A.046
70 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 72282A.047
71 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 72282A.048
72 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 72282A.049
73 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 72282A.050
74 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 72282A.051
75 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 72282A.052
76 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 72282A.053
77 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 72282A.054
78 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 72282A.055
79 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 72282A.056
80 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 72282A.057
81 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 72282A.058
82 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 72282A.059
83 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 72282A.060
84 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 72282A.061
85 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 72282A.062
86 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 72282A.063
87 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 72282A.064
88 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 72282A.065
89 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 72282A.066
90 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 72282A.067
91 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 72282A.068
92 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 72282A.069
93 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 72282A.070
94 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 72282A.071
95 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 72282A.072
96 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 72282A.073
97 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 72282A.074
98 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 72282A.075
99 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 72282A.076
100 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 72282A.077
101 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 72282A.078
102 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 72282A.079
103 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 72282A.080
104 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 72282A.081
105 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 72282A.082
106 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 72282A.083
107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 72282A.096
108 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 72282A.097
109 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 72282A.098
110 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 72282A.099
111 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 72282A.100
112 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 72282A.101
113 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 72282A.102
114 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 72282A.103
115 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 72282A.104
116 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 72282A.105
117 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 72282A.106
118 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 72282A.107
119 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 72282A.108
120 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 72282A.109
121 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 72282A.110
122 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 72282A.111
123 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 72282A.112
124 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 72282A.113
125 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 72282A.114
126 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 72282A.115
127 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 72282A.116
128 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 72282A.117
129 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 72282A.118
130 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 72282A.119
131 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 72282A.120
132 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 72282A.121
133 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 72282A.122
134 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 72282A.123
135 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 72282A.124
136 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 72282A.125
137 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 72282A.126
138 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 72282A.127
139 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 72282A.128
140 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 72282A.129
141 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 72282A.130
142 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 72282A.131
143 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 72282A.132
144 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 72282A.133
145 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 72282A.134
146 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 72282A.135
147 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 72282A.136
148 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 72282A.137
149 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 72282A.138
150 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 72282A.139
151 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 72282A.140
152 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 72282A.141
153 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 72282A.142
154 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 72282A.143
155 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 72282A.144
156 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 72282A.145
157 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 72282A.146
158 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 72282A.147
159 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 72282A.148
160 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 72282A.149
161 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 72282A.150
162 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 72282A.151
163 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 72282A.152
164 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 72282A.153
165 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 72282A.154
166 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 72282A.155
167 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 72282A.156
168 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 72282A.157
169 

Mr. HARPER. I will now recognize myself for some additional 

questions, and this time we will make sure we stay on the clock. 

So first thing that I would do is direct a comment back to the 

ranking member’s questioning about the EAC and the cost. I believe Chair Bauerly mentioned that she did not know some of the 

figures, of what they would be. But just to make the commissioners 

aware, according to the CBO score of the bill, the net effect after 

cost to the FEC would be $33 million less spending over 5 years. 

So those figures are available in the CBO report, to let you know. 

And I would like to ask you about, I ask the chair, when you 

were answering questions by Mr. Schock earlier, there was a question about the FEC policy that was adopted back in 1999—obviously, you were not on the Commission at that time—about the fact 

that at that point that there was a different enforcement, depending on which Federal Circuit district you were in. 

My question would be, is that policy still being used or has 

that—just so that I am clear, is that still the policy, to have it different in different districts or is it uniform now, according to your 

enforcement? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To my knowledge, at this point in time the Commission is not engaging in what—the legal doctrine of intercircuit nonacquiescence, 

which is a very fancy way of saying what you just said, that in different circuits different law might govern the Commission’s actions. 

At this point in time, again, I don’t know of any that we are actively engaging in. 

Mr. HARPER. Could you confirm that and let us know? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Sure, we would be happy to. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. 

Now, there was some talk that the enforcement manuals were 

outdated, that releasing those would be confusing; and my question 

is, if it is outdated, what is being—we were saying, what is the enforcement manual? What is that document when we are saying the 

current enforcement? What is that? Is that available? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Our enforcement division operates its standards 

with a number of documents that are not housed in one thing. The 

thing that we were talking about, the thing that is in a binder that 

is called the enforcement manual, has not been updated on paper 

simply because that is not how agencies work anymore. As we all 

know, we store things electronically. 

Mr. HARPER. May I interrupt just very briefly? Because somewhere within your written responses that were submitted I believe 

there was a statement that said the enforcement manual was updated via memos and emails. Is that where you are going? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Yes, that is—and, again, obviously I don’t have an 

office within the enforcement division, so I don’t have personal access to those. I don’t have those sitting on my desk, either. But 

that—again, Commissioner Walther’s effort a couple of years ago 

was to try to compile all that information in a usable way for people who are engaging in our process. 

Mr. HARPER. Okay, and I will ask this question for the chair and 

the vice chair. I believe all have publicly stated there is an agreement on a large portion of the needed changes to the FEC regulations post-United Citizens—or Citizens United, excuse me. Why 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
170 

hasn’t the Commission acted on those points of agreement and updated its regulations since that decision? And then when might we 

expect that to be updated, since that is going back to the decision, 

I believe, in January of 2010? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

In January of 2010, of course, the Supreme Court struck down 

several provisions of the statute, and we have corresponding regulations that were enacted as part of those. The Commission has on 

two occasions put out documents suggesting an NPRM, of course, 

notice of proposed rulemaking, the very beginning of our rulemaking process; and, as I think Commissioner Walther referenced, 

we were unable to reach agreement on the parameters of that. I 

think, frankly, there is disagreement amongst Commissioners in 

terms of what issues are raised by that case. 

Because the Court decision struck down the statute and not our 

regulations, there is some overlap in our regulations in terms of 

some of those provisions at issue. For example, after Wisconsin 

Right to Life, we provided a regulation regarding how to report 

that activity. The Citizens United decision, of course, overtakes 

Wisconsin Right to Life, so one question that some of us would like 

to ask is whether we should rethink that or consider making any 

changes. So we were unable thus far to be able to do that, but, as 

the vice chair mentioned in her opening statement, we do have petitions pending before us with respect to some of the provisions at 

issue in Citizens United, and I am hopeful we may be able to take 

action on that soon. 

Mr. HARPER. My time is up. Perhaps one of the others will ask 

you to follow up on that in just a moment. 

Now I will recognize the ranking member, Mr. Gonzalez, for a 

second round of questioning. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. I am only going to take a couple seconds, because the chairman and I could go for days on the EAC 

being subsumed by you. 

But I have just been handed this, and this is a quote from the 

CBO: Enacting H.R. 672 would have no significant effect on revenues. 

They are accountants, and I understand that, and they can put 

a pencil to things, but, given your schedule, your duties, what it 

would take to assume those other responsibilities, I think today’s 

testimony clearly indicates that you can’t put a dollar figure on it 

so that we can make representations to the supercommittee that it 

is going to result in savings. 

I am also a strong proponent of the focus and energy that the 

EAC brings to a specific area of campaign or elections. But I am 

going to ask Vice Chair Hunter and Commissioners McGahn and 

Petersen, because your response to my question about are the disclosure laws adequate today in order for you to do your job, and 

each of you said yes. So I would just ask you, beyond the obvious, 

to identify a donor, we establish whether they legally can donate 

or not. Beyond that, what is the value to identifying donors to any 

endeavor, entity that can impact an election in this country? 

Ms. HUNTER. The value is that the public has the ability to know 

who gave to a candidate’s committee or to a political committee and 

to all committees that are required to disclose their donors under 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
171 

the law. I believe some of the committees you may be referring to 

are not currently—they are not considered political committees; 

and, therefore, they do not have to disclose their political donors. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And do those committees, by the legal nature 

that you just referred to that exempt them or whatever it is, do 

they impact political campaigns in this country today? 

Ms. HUNTER. I believe that the Supreme Court has held that if 

they are making independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates or party committees that it is not possible 

for those independent expenditures to corrupt or to have the potential to corrupt those candidates or party committees. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Do they influence elections? 

I mean, this is a practical question. We can sit here and say 

what is the Supreme Court going to say. I mean, they have already 

equated a corporation to an individual. We can go from there. But 

I am just asking everyone in this room, my colleagues and such, 

do these entities impact and make a difference in elections today 

in this country? 

Ms. HUNTER. Yes, they do. Of course. Just as my neighbor does 

when he is talking to me as I walk down the street. There is a multitude of different factors that affect elections. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I think there is a huge difference between you 

talking to a neighbor and the moneys that these groups raise and 

spend to influence elections. I mean, it is obvious what is going on, 

and you may say it is the Supreme Court and the legal nature of 

an entity that exempts them. My point is, what is a rose by any 

other name? 

Mr. McGahn, you answered yes. Mr. Petersen, you answered yes. 

What is the value? I mean, why should we know who is contributing to organizations or entities that influence our elections? 

Mr. MCGAHN. Well, for those who give to candidates, I think we 

need to know because of corruption or appearance. I think the voters have a right to know who is taking money from whom before 

they vote for the person. 

With respect to noncandidates, I think the argument is that the 

voter can factor in how they view the message based upon who is 

paying for the message. Some say there is value to that. Some say 

that that actually just clouds the message. The message ought to 

stand on its own. You know, there is case law in both sides. 

Anonymous speech is still protected in some instances. Some instances it is not. There could be harassment against the donors and 

all that. But there is some value. The courts have recognized it in 

some sort of subjective way. Certainly we all agree there is some 

value there. The question is whether it is enough of a value to compel people to say who they are when they speak. There is arguments on both sides. The Court has drawn lines on this. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I only have a couple of seconds. I want to give 

Mr. Petersen a chance. 

Mr. PETERSEN. I mean, the value of disclosure—just to repeat 

some of what has been said but to add some additional—when 

money is given to a candidate—disclosure serves an anti-corruption 

purpose. 

When we are in the realm of independent speech, the Supreme 

Court starting in Buckley talked about the value is for the public 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
172 

who is receiving the message to be able to take into account the 

person who is funding that message. That is a piece of information 

that they can take into account when evaluating the merits or the 

lack thereof of that particular speech. It is a different interest in 

the independent realm than it is when we are talking about disclosure of donors to candidates. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Different interest, same result. 

Mr. Chairman, I know I have run out of time, but I ask unanimous consent to tender into the record Mr. Brady’s statement. 

Mr. HARPER. Without objection. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Brady follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
173 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 72282A.158
174 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 72282A.159
175 

Mr. HARPER. I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Schock, for additional questions. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will run through some 

here. 

Mr. Chairman, you had asked specifically about why there hadn’t 

been changes. The commissioners said there will be changes. My 

question is when. Is there a timeline on Citizens United? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Oh, thank you. I think we weren’t sure which 

timeline you were looking for. 

We are in the process of considering when we might schedule 

that. We are hopeful by the end of the year. We are looking at each 

other because, frankly, these processes are complex and we want 

to make sure that we consider all of the options when we do put 

things out for public comment. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Okay. I want to be clear there is consensus among 

you that in addition to the manual you support also releasing the 

fee schedule or the penalty schedule. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Representative Schock, if I could make sure I understand your question, you are asking whether there is consensus 

among us about releasing our penalty schedule? 

Mr. SCHOCK. Yes. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Again, I believe that you heard consensus among 

us that we think that should be public. I think the challenge will 

be making it for some set of documents, some pieces of paper that 

at least four of us can agree on to make public. There are some disagreements over what the formula should be. 

And, again, we would want to also make sure that any documents released do indicate that the Commission has discretion to 

make modifications in either direction and also to note that we 

must conciliate with people and so penalties at the end of the day 

may look different than they do on these formulas. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Okay. Well, I just want to state for the record, with 

all due respect to the commissioners, Mr. Chairman, I would support your subpoena request so that we are sure that we get all the 

information that we are requesting. 

Finally, I want to follow up on my last question about the request for more information. You stated that there is really no penalty for people to—for committees that don’t respond to the request 

for more information, there is no specific penalty. However, I will 

tell you, as a candidate, when you receive the request for additional 

information, it states specifically on that document from the FEC 

that if a candidate does not respond with the information that you 

are requesting, we will then be subject to an audit. 

So I would suggest that, again to Mr. Lungren’s point about appearances for a candidate who is trying to spend as much time getting to know the voters, when we get a document from you requesting information that we are not required to produce based on law, 

based on statute, followed by a statement that if we don’t compel 

to provide that information we will be subject to an audit, I would 

suggest to you that that is inconsistent. It is not helpful. And I 

would urge the commissioners to review that practice, quite frankly. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Thank you. If I might, Representative Schock, 

clarify what I said. I didn’t mean to suggest—I agree with you that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
176 

an audit certainly would be viewed by some as certainly some consequence, perhaps a penalty. 

What I was, I think, responding to was your statement about due 

process; and, as I mentioned, we do have a process by which committees may come directly to the Commission to seek further guidance on whether they need to respond to that letter. If information 

in a letter can be resolved easily, the public record is complete; and 

there is nothing further taken with respect to that request for information. 

If the information remains inadequate, the discrepancies in the 

report are not corrected, for example, if there are mathematical errors, cash on hand does not match, for example, those things may 

over the course of time if a committee demonstrates an inability to 

comply with their disclosure requirements, then that committee 

may be referred to a number of different processes within the 

building, including ADR enforcement or audit. 

So I apologize if I wasn’t clear about the process—the full process 

that is involved with request for information. 

Mr. SCHOCK. But you can understand where we are coming from. 

If you are being requested to provide information that you are not 

required to provide and then also the dangling audit is hung above 

your head, there might as well not be a law that says what you 

can provide. You might as well be able to request whatever it is 

you want so long as you have the audit to be able to hang over our 

heads if and when we don’t provide the information requested. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Representative Schock, we send requests for information when there are discrepancies on reports that indicate that 

there may be more information required. All of that is based on the 

existing law and the regulations. There is no—not in RFAI—— 

Mr. SCHOCK. Let me give you one example where I think there 

is a discrepancy. In June of 2011, the FEC sent a letter to Crossroads GPS requiring more information, demanding that they disclose their donors. By law, groups are only required to disclose this 

information to the FEC if the contributions are earmarked for specific independent expenditures. That is the law. 

Crossroads has made it clear publicly throughout the press as 

well as in documents to you that their response to the FEC would 

be that its reports were full and complete and that they had no donors to report because no contributions were earmarked for a particular election. So it was out there, it is public, it has been stated, 

and yet the FEC sent them a request for more information requiring them to submit—to provide their donors, and then once again 

stating if you don’t provide the information requested, you will be 

subject to an audit. 

So I would just encourage you that your legal counsel should 

make sure that what you are requesting is, in fact, required by law 

before you compel them because—and not in every instance as you 

are suggesting is it just a clerical error or some clarification that 

needs to be made on a filing statement. 

I believe my time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. HARPER. I will now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, 

Mr. Rokita, but I am going to give you an opportunity to answer, 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

I just wanted to make clear to Mr. Schock that requests for information are sent based upon the review of the reports. The RAD analysts don’t go out and look for information about committees that 

they might—whose reports they might be reviewing. So I just want 

to make clear that the report analyst is looking at the report being 

filed by the committee. 

They would not go out and look at other information about the 

committee. In certain instances, you might view that as a detriment to the committee. In other instances, committees might 

view that as unfair to them. So what we look at is the report that 

is filed with us. So I just wanted to clarify what our process is. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

I will now recognize Mr. Rokita for questioning. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the way the 

discussion is going. I would like to yield 2 minutes to Congressman 

Schock. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Well, Mr. Rokita, thank you for your generosity. 

Mr. ROKITA. I am new. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Shifting gears here, last year, the Commission 

issued an advisory opinion which gave Google permission to run political ads, yet denied Facebook an advisory opinion on nearly an 

identical type of ad. Can you explain why? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Congressman Schock, the advisory opinion in 

Google indicated that there were, I believe, four commissioners who 

agreed that the way that the ad was presented on Google would 

comply with the law. My view of that one was that because of the 

way the Google ad was structured that it would be going to a landing page where there was a full disclaimer on it. My view was that 

that satisfied our alternative disclaimer requirement. 

I won’t speak for other commissioners who may have voted in 

favor of that Google opinion. I think there were obviously different 

ways that different commissioners got to that result of saying that 

that was an appropriate course of conduct for the Google ads. 

With respect to Facebook, that was a different type of ad. 

Facebook has a different format, and the request indicated that 

they thought they were entitled to an exemption from the disclaimer requirements. 

Again, I will speak only from my view. Others may want to include theirs. I did not think that it met the existing exemptions for 

a disclaimer requirement. 

Of course, when the Internet rulemaking was conducted a few 

years ago, the one area where the Internet is part of our regulations is for ads placed for a fee on another’s Web site. We have attempted—we understand that technology is changing. These are 

very important innovations for campaigns and candidates and voters to use, and we recently put out an advance notice of rulemaking to try to gather input on whether the Commission should 

or should not engage in a rulemaking to address this issue. We 

think this is very important. 

The Commission obviously can’t adopt a Twitter rule and a 

Facebook rule and a Google rule, but we do want to make sure that 

we are trying to keep up with innovation if we can, and we welcome public comment on that notice. It is out for public comment 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 

right now, and comments are due in the next few weeks. So we are 

looking forward to some guidance not only from users of this technology but other providers. 

Mr. ROKITA. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you very much, Commissioner. 

Mr. HARPER. Reclaiming his time, Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. If I knew Congressman Schock was going to ask my 

question, I wouldn’t have yielded any time. 

Mr. SCHOCK. I have more. 

Mr. ROKITA. With my remaining time, I would like to go to the 

vice chairwoman and see if you want to respond at all to any question that Mr. Schock may have asked or Mr. Harper may have 

asked. 

Ms. HUNTER. Thank you, Congressman. I would like to follow up 

on the RFAI question. 

While it is true that the letters are sent out pursuant to the RAD 

manual that we have been discussing a lot this morning, you have 

to have four votes to get the RAD manual to be approved. 

Several years ago, several of the commissioners brought up the 

exact letter that you are referring to, Congressman, the letter that 

was sent to American Crossroads. But years ago it was sent to a 

different group—and I can’t remember what the organization 

was—and we, too, had an issue with the letter saying that this is 

information that the FEC is not entitled to ask. And you are right. 

The letter does end by saying you could end up in an enforcement 

proceeding or an audit proceeding, because that is absolutely true. 

But we didn’t have a fourth vote to change that letter. So we are 

aware of that issue. It is just there is only so much we are able 

to do. 

And something that came to mind as you were talking, I think 

it would be a helpful improvement to add a sentence to the RFAI 

letter. As the chair notes, we have a new policy now that outside 

groups and the public can ask the Commission to weigh in on outstanding legal issues. So I think it would be helpful to reference 

that policy in the RFAI letters so people are fully aware that they 

can contest the premise of those letters. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rokita, would you yield for a second? 

I was just thinking that maybe you can take care of this by including RFAI letters in the Anti-Bullying Act that is coming 

through the Congress. 

Mr. ROKITA. So noted. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HARPER. I will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Nugent, for additional questions. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I concur with the 

chairman’s idea. 

You know, the comment has been made about, you know, we are 

worried about, particularly as I relate to a candidate, that there is 

a threshold that you don’t want them to know about because they 

may violate it up to a threshold. I will tell you that I don’t know 

any candidate that wants to get a letter from the FEC saying that 

you are in violation of anything. Because that in and of itself, I will 

tell you, is a sanction that most of us as candidates always were 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
179 

concerned about, whether you are running in a State but also particularly in a Federal election. 

Let me ask, on the RFAIs, do you believe that is part of the enforcement action? And each commissioner I would like an answer, 

do you believe that is part of the enforcement action, starting with 

Commissioner Walther. 

Mr. WALTHER. Well, I think the issue is that it could be the beginning of it. I think the RFAIs serve a purpose because it offers 

somebody who has filed—and there is a lot of people who file and 

they don’t really understand our reg book very well, make mistakes, and it gives us the opportunity to communicate informally 

on ways in which they might be able to comply. So there is a benefit to that. 

I think—and I asked the question right now of my assistant. I 

thought we had sent out—when we sent out an RFAI—a warning— 

that they do not have to answer anything. And I was just told now 

that that is only in the case where we think that is so, and sometimes they really have to answer the question because it is required by law. 

I don’t support that. I think we ought to have a warning, at 

least, that you are not obligated to answer anything if you don’t 

want to. 

Mr. NUGENT. So—— 

Mr. WALTHER. So I am not sure exactly how that—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Do you believe that is an enforcement action or not, 

the RFAI? 

Mr. WALTHER. At that particular time, no. 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay. 

Commissioner Weintraub. 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. I view the RFAIs primarily as a disclosure 

mechanism to ensure that the reports that are filed contain all the 

information that the law requires. 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay. 

Chairman. 

Ms. BAUERLY. I agree with Commissioner Weintraub. It is the 

way that we ensure that we are enforcing—that we are complying 

with our duty to ensure that the reports are accurate when they 

are filed. 

As Commissioner Walther noted, at some point, if there are 

enough discrepancies or there are enough problems with someone 

filing, it may later move further down the process. But, again, that 

would have to be a substantial number of problems and ongoing 

problems with reports in order to get there. We have an obligation 

to make sure the public has access to accurate information, and 

when we see problems, that is the step in doing so. 

Mr. NUGENT. Commissioner Hunter. 

Ms. HUNTER. They are absolutely part of the enforcement process, as there are consequences; and if one doesn’t answer them, you 

know, in total, you can be referred for enforcement—or for audit. 

Mr. NUGENT. Commissioner McGahn. 

Mr. MCGAHN. I think the FEC has wanted it both ways. On the 

one hand, it is not enforcement when it is convenient; on the other 

hand, it is. It is enforcement when we talk about the manual beVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:26 Jan 28, 2012 Jkt 072282 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A282.XXX A282

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
180 

cause all of a sudden the manual is secret, but it is not enforcement because it is in the public record. 

Personally, I think they are a form of enforcement. I think it is 

a form of branding someone without an opportunity to be heard. 

When they were only available in the public records room, okay, 

they are public. But now they are on the Internet and, as you 

know, they end up in 30-second TV ads and you don’t really have 

a meaningful opportunity to respond. It is a very real issue, and 

I think they are a form of enforcement. 

Just if I could take one second, there are examples of things the 

Commission in the past has asked for that they don’t—that they 

aren’t entitled to ask for. Party committees used to get an RFAI 

all the time when they did a coordinated expenditure and an independent expenditure, saying, we see you have done both, you know, 

please explain how you can do both. 

Well, the Supreme Court in Colorado Republican said you could 

do both. It was an old letter that predated Colorado Republican 

that really had never been updated. 

A lot of this has been fixed. There is more work to be done, but 

there are things that are being asked for that still are on the cusp 

beyond the letter to Crossroads. So I just want to echo that. But 

I think the answer is it is part of the enforcement process. 

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Petersen. 

Mr. PETERSEN. I agree, I think it also is part of the enforcement 

process. Even though it may not be part of the formal process 

where a matter under review number is assigned to it and so forth, 

it can definitely lead to that. And I have often wondered why we 

do make those public, and I think as a result of them leading to 

or potentially leading to an enforcement matter, I think we should 

question whether or not they should remain public on the Web site. 

Mr. NUGENT. And I agree. I think the question was, and you 

may—panel members—some panel members may disagree that it 

is an enforcement action, but if I am held accountable to the public 

in regards to something that you are just—you are saying it is 

just—well, we are just trying to clarify a possible mistake in numbers in addition. It could be, you know, you had 228 or you had 230 

donors. The damage has already been done once you release that 

on your Web site. It then becomes—that is enforcement, I guess, 

through omission on your part by just releasing it. 

And part of what the chairman had mentioned about the bullying 

aspect of it, particularly for those first-time candidates, it can be 

a crusher to their viability, and so the unintended consequence is 

it is an enforcement. It may not be the way you sought, but it is 

to the candidate. 

I am over time. 

Mr. HARPER. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from California, chair of the full 

committee, Mr. Lungren, for questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. My observation would be if I received a letter 

from a government agency that said if you don’t answer this, you 

could be audited, that sounds like a threat. You may not see it that 

way, but I can certainly see a reporter saying candidate A received 

a letter from the FEC threatening an audit. Boy, boom, that kind 

of puts a negative connotation on it, I would think. So when you 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
181 

put words like that in there, I think you ought to realize what the 

impact is. 

I was just thinking from Mr. Gonzalez’s questions about Citizens 

United and influencing and so forth, does anybody here know who 

financed the original publication of the Federalist Papers? 

Mr. MCGAHN. Publius. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did he pay for it? 

Mr. MCGAHN. It is anonymous. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am just saying, should that have been 

disclosed? 

Mr. MCGAHN. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think that probably influenced the founding of 

this Republic, if I am not mistaken. And they used other names, 

and they didn’t tell anybody where they got their money, and it 

was done to persuade legislatures to adopt the Constitution to give 

us protections under the First Amendment. Maybe they didn’t understand. 

Let me just ask this question, Madam Chair. Under current law, 

could a candidate designate an individual other than their treasurer of their campaign to dispose of campaign assets if they were 

to pass away? Do you have any flexibility in allowing a campaign— 

a candidate to say it is not my treasury. I want—in the unfortunate situation that I might pass away, somebody else might know 

a better idea of how I would want those campaign funds to go to 

charitable institutions than my campaign manager who—I mean 

my campaign treasurer who I may hire because he or she speaks 

your language and knows how to make sure I don’t get one of those 

audit letters. 

Ms. BAUERLY. Chairman Lungren, if I understand your question, 

the question is, were a candidate to pass away, could a new treasurer be assigned for that committee? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah, could they designate, in other words, one 

person for purposes of campaign treasury but if in the untimely 

event they passed away someone else to dispose of the campaign 

assets other than the designated treasurer? 

Ms. BAUERLY. Of course, a campaign may designate a treasurer 

and an assistant treasurer at any point in time. It wouldn’t require 

any other circumstances. So there could always be sort of a backup 

person, and we frankly encourage that because that is very useful 

in case something were to happen to the treasurer rather than the 

candidate. 

At this point in time, I don’t believe we have specific regulations 

on that. Were such an unfortunate event to occur, I think the Commission would make every effort to work with a committee in terms 

of ensuring that whatever the wishes of the candidate were could 

be carried out. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. HARPER. I want to thank everyone, and also we do look forward to seeing those manuals and penalty schedules. We think 

that that is an important issue for us today. 

I think it is good that we have had this hearing after many years 

of not having one, and I want to thank each of the witnesses for 

their testimony and the members for their participation, and I now 

adjourn the subcommittee. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
182 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 72282A.160
184 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 72282A.161
185 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 72282A.162
186 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 72282A.163
187 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 72282A.164
188 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246/300 72282A.165