This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on June 22, 2017.  This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.>> Open meeting for Thursday, June 22, 2017. We will consider draft -- 201701. , 03. >> I think we need a motion for additional document -- >> I have to suspend the rules on timely documents so they may consider 2017 -- 1. Draft B and draft advisory opinion 2017-3p17-it 23-B. Any comments, questions? All in favor? >> Aye. >> Ayes have it unanimously. We are prepared to discuss the matter. If Mr. Mason would like to come to table, please join us and miss Malinski -- B . >> I have Dr. McWilliams who is president of AACU and traveled all the way from objection city to be with us. I will let him go first. >> Thank you for letting me come into your world. I'm a surgeon. Not a lawyer. If I trip up, correct me. I'm a volunteer with ACU. And member of AUA for 30 plus years and joined up approximate AACU for advocacy about 20 years ago. We have worked together. AACU and AUA. We have enjoyed a great time together over these many years. We assumed the advocacy at beginning and change their statu status and advocate with us. We have become like the little brother of advocacy layout for urologists. Estate society network is a good example as recent president -- we work together. I see it as a team. We've been a team all these years. We continue to work together. We share leadership on our boards by rotating through. As you know, most of our members are AUA members. We don't have any foreign members in our association. The AUA is an international organization. As we work together, we strive, we are very much aligned with legislative issues and policy issues. We don't have as many balls in the air as AUA does. We have been working together. Continue to work together. Sign on letters together as they request and invite us to sign on. Now things do change. And as has changed, there is administrative issues over recent years where it's difficult or problematic for two groups to work together. We in AACU have not always done sub push job. As issues have developed, we see this affiliation issue as more of an administrative issue and not anything different from 2002 affiliation. I would hate to see administrative issues cause us to disaffiliate when really one as phrase goes. You are we and we are you. That's been a phrase that we have held right up until most recently. Should The Commission allow us to continue to work together under the agreement as outlined in 2002, I'm optimistic that AACU and AUA will have a new coming day. We are open to our working together and helping us all pull the rope in same direction. Many workers make laborer light. These are tough times. Urologist in the field as evidenced by the section support, by financial support of sections, urologist in the field wants everyone to work together. I thank you for letting me come here today. I wanted to speak out as one of many volunteers that we see the AUA as our partner. We look forward to working with them as we have for almost 50 years. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment at detail level about draft B because with all due respect to draft or drafters, I think there's a point of legal analysis I disagree with. That bears on relationship with AACU and AUA draft sections. Dismiss that as unimportant or not properly before The Commission. >> I believe it is important. Nature of organizations such that a lot of work goes on at section level and a lot of meetings are at section level. As to pack in particular, a lot of solicitations gone on at section level when joint treatment was in place and since then as evidenced by sections continuing to support uro pack with administrative funding. How these operate, important factor in terms of AUA. I don't represent them obvious they have integrated membership. Board members are elected by sections. Those are unyesbly affiliated for election law purposes. AACU is affiliated through either as whether either sides of that, I think they are properly affiliated for election law. Try to support some of them as a fairly rich set of facts that detail that tie. Weighing heavily familiar in election. >> Any questions? >> That you for welcoming us back for divorce court redux. Warm relationship that was painted between AUA and AACU in intervening two weeks in meeting, not been a recon siltation of parties. AUA is still committed to its position on disaffiliation. We are pleased to see the draft B that was issued yesterday in both matters. We believe these drafts reflect the right result and are the proper analysis in this matter. AACU in such you will compartmental submission continue to do rely heavily and as we heard from Mr. Mason, rely heavily on section analysis. Reason for this is obvious. Very few relations at national level anymore. Sections really are only relationship that exists at all AUC and AACU. >> Every decision they have made in past three years has been to pull away from and sever ties with AACU. Those decisions made with full support of AUA board and that includes section leaders that are represented on board. AUA national board is responsible for interest vetting policies and overseaing operations. This large cannot be overwritten by a few sections that provide, I would say minor financial support to Uro pacts administration. I don't know why they provided that support. They could have been doing it for several years and continued to do it or been that there is no other alternative as we have outlined in our -- submissions. The board wants to disassociate. Votes have been unanimous including from section representatives on the board. We request that commission determine that a AACU and AUA are no longer affiliated and adopt B drafts in both matters. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Commissioners have any questions? >> Yes. >> I don't know who to erect this to. What administrative control or power does AUA have over the operation of the AACU political action committee? >> At this point, none. >> None. >> They have been the vice chair of Uro pact for many years. >> That lapsed. >> Yes. >> No further formal or inform control or power of administrative decision office AACU political action committee? >> Two years ago, AUA came to us and said that because of tax filing issue, we would like to step away from affiliation sponsoring the pact. We had six months of legal discussion. Said fine. Confusing. File the tax returns ourselves and you can step off as sponsor. We maintain AUA as vice chair. They speak out at our meetings. Vice chair at conference let out -- >> Are you talking about vice chair of AACU or vice chair of AACU political action commit committee. >> Political action. >> And representative serves as vice chair of AACU. >> It did. >> Under affiliation agreement. >> And up until this year with these changes that are occurring, we are re-evaluating board structure. Our bowl is to keep the AUA deeply involved. >> Today. >> Who is vice chair of AACU political action committee today? >> Jonathan Henderson. >> Does be with pact with violation of AUA? >> No. >> Had he ease an AACU health policy member. >> Doctor, I understand historically that AUA had a designated slot as vice chair of AACU political action committee. >> Correct. >> As a result of that lapsing, does AUA have any continuing legal authority to direct the operations of AACU political action committee? >> They do not. >> Okay. >> Re-evaluating our board structure. >> If I might commissioner good man. >> To me, part of this is backwards all along. The ultimate issue for commission to decide whether organizations are affiliated such that pacts or pacts are treated as one for purpose of contribution limits. We cannot look at the pact operations to determine the conclusion as to whether the packs are affiliated or not. >> We don't have -- AUA doesn't have a pact. There is nothing to look at. You can also look at two organizations to see if they are affiliated. We want to be disaffiliated, they will not be subjects to policy positions and strategic analysis. Going to comment that was made about tax issue, more than attacks issues that led them to stop providing administrative support. That was a affirmative decision of AUA board that no longer wanted to be involved with administration in support of uro pact. To describe it as a minor tax issue is not accurate. >> Two separate events. One occurred almost a year before the other. Just to be clear. Separate events. >> Mr. Chairman? >> I'm going to ask if your legal observations or legal conclusions -- if commission were to conclude that you're disaffiliated database it of its is he gre gray for's fund. >> I don't believe so. >> What was that. >> I don't believe they would be able to continue provide administrative support to AACU. Would be able to provide administrative support if AUA performed a pact. >> Chairman Mason? >> I agree. That is one of big challenges for uro pact. That funding I understand council doesn't think $10,000 is very much or $40,000 in a gre GATT. That's substantial amount of money. Five or six contributing are substantial number of sections. >> True. >> Any further questions? Comments? any further -- anything you would like to add -- if there is nothing, I consider it -- for consideration. Excuse me. Commissioner Peterson? >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I was at commission for nine years and before in this field. We had a number of affiliations. Little bit mind numbing in analysis that of you to go through. Posture of this one is unique in all the ones that we considered at this point. Typically, we have two or more groups that want to affiliate and to increase number of restricted class so they have pool to draw from in terms of fund-raising activities or desire to disaffiliate that governing organization that might have necessitated an affiliation has changed and groups to wish to go with own separate ways and confirm through agency that they can disaffiliate and agency interest in preserve integrity of contribution is maintained. Here we have one group that seeking this affiliation -- disaffiliation so they can start up own pact. Only other party to that former union is seeking to keep them in. This is kind of an argument we need to preserve this marriage to save the children. I've never seen it kind of postured this way before. And obviously there are big picture policy related issues and about how the two organizations are going to move forward -- that frankly is beyond the jurisdiction and sub matter interest of commission are interest in this case is maintaining the integrity of the contribution limits that if a group wishes to disaffiliate, we look to see whether or not there is evidence and when you look at affiliation regulation outside of per se factors, once we get outside of those and get into ten factors, becomes a fact intense analysis. Eyes on prize are contribution limit -- integrity going to be maintained or example of double-dipping or organization that is are extensively that claim to be unrelated. Are they one organization. If we gift them two, are they going to be able to double up? At this point, I, when I see one organization basically saying we want out, and demonstrating concrete actions that have been taken to you know on a variety of different fronts including to desire to no longer provide administrative support to pack to the euro pack. , I'm struggling at this point to see where desire to disaffiliate calls into question it integrity that there would be a problem from perspective of maintaining integrity of contribution limits. If group wants to get out of relationship and doesn't appear from evidentiary perspective that that is going to cause a problem or make it likely that now there is going to be a threat of contribution limits being doubled up, I've got to say from my perspective, hard to say, no, you are going to have to stay affiliated because there is a desire on the side of one part -- on one party or the other. That's kind of where I am right now. And so I just -- I invite whatever comments that any of you might have to modify my thinking or if I'm on the wrong tract. Looking at it from my perspective, this provides a unique situation. I'm assuming that everybody has come here because of their affiliation analysis. I have no other reason to think they would be here. I invite any comment that you might have to either say that I'm on the right track or wrong track. Looking at it from my perspective. That's how I'm reading the situation? >> I think you are on the right track. >> Let me try to dissuade you. Analogy to family court ises one to make. I understand why commissioners think of it this way. Question before you is allele question about relationships between the organizations. And that was sort of my point, I think in a little bit of exchange with commissioner Goodman that pack itself is derivative, conclusions here. If organizations are between as such affiliated for election law purposes. Two pacts are affiliated. And so I don't think the disputes of administration of the pact or desire to have a separate pact without common contribution limits factor into commission affiliation analysis. Those are conclusion of affiliation analysis. And obviously you have to come to your conclusions about that. That's why I think the, we want a separate pact is distracting argument here and you ought to look at other factors. If I can ask a quick question. Would it be your conclusion if we were to adopt an opinion that said that two organizations may disaffiliate, would there be a will threat to integrity of contribution limits? If AUA were to establish its own pact? That's where -- commission doesn't have an interest in the organizational structure of -- that that's outside our purview. Our interest is not maintaining integrity of campaign finance system and in particular finance limits. Would that be a threat if there were to be a disaffiliation? >> I think it's predictable because two organizations because policy interest are aligned would be contributing to same set of candidates. That's suggestion. That's likely. >> Policy interests of AUA are far broader than AACU's fairly narrow policy interest. I don't think think it is forgone conclusion or likely that contributions would match each other. Or that -- there certainly would be no communication about it. Two pacts would be entirely separate with own separate boards. That's what we are hoping that we can achieve. >> If I could comment. >> Sure. >> We are members of public policy committee as AACU. And contrary to what you just heard, we at AACU, we have the same passion, mission, vision for public policy. We are urologists together. We operate together. We argue together. We eat together. We are the same. We fight together. We have for almost 50 years. Nothing has changed besides administrative issue that is is a blip on the screen. This is a team that's working together who has met some barriers and had some failings. We need to continue to drive to work together. We are one. >> I would ask The Commission to recognize that we will be contributing to same policy issues. Only reason we don't have 15 issues on our website is because we are a staff of three. We are all volunteers. We team up with AUA and have to achieve public policy goals that we have as urologists. We are all urologists together. We share these questions. We work on boards. I don't really -- I really don't see disaffiliation. I see us as two groups funding the same issues. >> Mr. Peterson. Excuse me. Ms. -- -- I thought you were pointing to commissioner Peterson. >> You are very eloquent and heartfelt. You keep saying we are one. They keep saying no, we are not. What do we make of that? >> Well, I think any family has arguments and disagreements. [Laughter] And I think if you look at record, even up until today, we are still functioning as a family. We are still funding each other. We are still loyal to AUA. We share our communities. We share our boards. The president of AUA will be at our meeting. Invited to our meeting coming up in the fall. We are partnering in the new summit that the -- I mean, sure, there are some issues, I suppose, in the past. >> I think that given the chance, this disaffiliation will melt away. I really don't think this is a heartfelt issue amongst the urologists in America. I think these are series of events around board table and perhaps more desire for control of pact. Perhaps there is a need for better cohesive work regarding the pack. This is speculation. Perhaps prompted the board to want to get their arms around the pack and not have to work as a Tammy. Looks easier when you are stepping out of a relationship that is productive all these years. Easier to work machine on our own. We don't see it that way. We see us as a voice. We see us as a very important part of political scene. Although it's in the states perhaps more than federal level, I think we work together well and continue to work together well. It's a transition. Not one for divorce. Transition to work together, try harder, to give and take. Because of that contributions and support to process will be healthier. >> That's very optimistic and unrealistic vision of future. AUA has consistently and voted on several occasions to take steps to move away from AUA. Those happen over time. Not an inclination from board or membership to change that or move in a direction that would be any different than what we are presenting here today. >> I've got to just -- sorry. >> Go ahead. >> The word unanimous has been repeated over and over and over. I got to address this. When the word unanimous is used for the board's decisions, any one associated with AACU on the board at the time is asked to leave the room. They are not involved in any of the discussions regarding AACU issues. They are recused. Votes have not been unanimous and if you are trying to move this in ascertain direction, you -- a certain direction, you simply ask those who are not involved in AACU to stay in the room and those who are to step out of the room. Our board member recently over the past six months asked to step out anytime these issues came up, no participation. Not a unanimous vote. Unanimous vote of those remaining in the room. >> No participation because he had a conflict of interest. That was why recused from -- which is center of this whole discussion and debate. >> Did you have comment? >> No. >> Mr. Mason? >> Anything further? Anything further on commission level? >> Excuse me. Madam vice chair. >> I have a technical corrections at draft. I don't want to cut off debate I would like to amend the document that is before us in cutting and president of the United Stating of documents. We left one paragraph out of draft for AACU. We are going to bring in a paragraph and move it into AACU drafts. Move afoot note from one page to another. Doesn't alter substance. Can we make that motion? >> Of course. I move -- inserts on page 21 line 7 paragraph conencounterly approximating on page 21 lines one through 6 of 17 -- 22B and current footnote 13 on page 17 to the draft to the end of line 7 on page 13 of same draft. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? >> Unanimously carries. Would you like to read this change before you finalize comments? No? Yes? Answer is no further comments necessary. At this point that is before us for consideration what is pleasure of commission? I want to tell you this is hard in this position. There is always attention to want to see when they work it out. Respect it when they don't. Hard to try to decide how to approach it and make it right. And so I've -- before trying very hard before us trying to figure out whether ultimately there could be a great marriage with a little bit of active in between or whether or not this is it. (Tif). >> Any thoughts on how to proceed? We have a couple of motions before us. Not acted on. Anybody want to make a motion? >> Happy to make a motion. We have discuss if people would like. Approval of agenda documents 17-B and documents 23-B as amended. >> Comment by anybody on this? No discussion. Prepare to make a vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? >> I will also vote in favor. With difficulty. It's unanimous. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Best of luck. . >> Mr. Chair, I move to suspend the rules of -- commission may consider discussion of commission's response to alleged foreign interference in American elections agenda document 17-27-A. >> Any comment? >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye have it. We have before us the matter on discussion of commission's response to alleged foreign enter renaissances in American elections. This has generated a lot of thought on implications of some of the aspects of it. We just handed a draft that went blue about an hour ago that addresses a number of issues that are involved. I'm going to hold the matter until the next open session. >> Mr. Chairman? >> Yes. >> I just want to say that an earlier draft that was largely redundant of blew document was circulated to commission early in the week. I understand the request has been made to hold it over. I think that this addresses very serious issues affecting our democracy over which we have jurisdiction. And there are not going to go away. And I eel be back. >> Thank you very much. Anything further? Any matter subject to -- excuse me? Any matter subject to exemption? >> No additional matters. Meeting is adjourned.