This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on April 20, 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.


>> I think we can begin. We have five commissioners and we'll do a couple things that don't require a vote. First what I want to do is call to order the open meeting for the Federal Election Commission on Thursday, April 20th, 2017. And we have -- I'm going to start with the socialist worker's party matter and the Michigan Oregon public committee will wait until we get done with the socialist workers party. And before we get started, I'd like to call everyone's attention to something that we regret, and that's the loss of Adav who's been with us for ten years, and that's about how long I've been with you. So I don't know what that means, but Adav, to lose you is a sad day for the commission, but it sounds like a really nice step for you and really great. To give a little information about Adav, like I say, he's been here for ten years. He went to Georgetown and then New York university law school and then clerked for judge Sheller, eastern district of Pennsylvania. And then went to work for Paul Weiss for three years and then entered the litigation division of the U.S. Attorney's Office, and served well there and then came with us to Federal Election Commission. Started off as acting assistant general counsel for litigation, then became associate counsel for policy and now has his associate general policy position until he doesn't. But once again, Adav has been a great person to work with and I know all of us are really sad to see him go. He's got a great command of the law and I've seen him orally argue cases which were really quite impressive and he's going to be probably not replaceable but we'll do our best. I'm sure there's some other comments people would like to make as well. Mrs. Weintraub.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to say a formal farewell to Adav, although I'm hoping we'll keep in touch. Adav is one of the smartest, most thoughtful lawyers that I've ever had the privilege of working with, and somebody that has been really helpful to me over the years as I've tried to work through some of the notty issues that confront us here. Somebody with Adav's background, his educational background, background as a litigator, his big firm and public sector experience could easily have gone out into the private sector and made a lot of money and a lot of people would make that choice, not that there's anything wrong with that, but he's not doing that. He is staying in the -- broadly in the public service field, and I am -- my one consolation as we lose him at the FEC is that he has chosen to stay in this area of the law and will continue, I know, to do great work on the issues that are so important to our democracy. So I appreciate that and we'll miss you, but we'll keep in touch.
>> Commissioner Petersen.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to just extend my thanks for the great work that you've done here at the agency. I've very much enjoyed the association of having you when you were in litigation and since you've been head of our policy division, I've always appreciated not only the fine legal judgment that you brought to the matters but also just the pleasant, kind of interpersonal interactions we've had as well, and I thank you for the professionalism you brought to all of the work that you've done here at the agency. As Commissioner Weintraub said, you will remain in the field and it is a tight-knit community in the campaign finance realm and look forward to continuing association with you in the future.
>> Commissionner Goodman, please.
>> We're loading if not one of the biggest brains and most experienced professionals we have in the agency, and it's been a privilege to work with you. I look forward to our continuing association.
>> Anything further? Adav?
>> Just very quickly, thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you commissioners for the very, very kind words. All I'd say is that to the extent that any commissioner is happy with the work product or the recommendations that have come out of policy over the last few years, it's not my work product. It's not really my recommendations. It's the work of the men and women of the division who work very, very hard every day to think carefully about these difficult questions and to provide the best advice they possibly can on every single matter, and really the credit is theirs. But thank you.
>> With that, let's begin with the socialist worker party issue. And I will introduce people here on behalf of the party. First would be Allison Kennedy, who is the presidential candidate for the party, and then John Studer, who's a member of the party, and Steve Clark, and then Lindsey Frank, who is the counsel for the party here today. Welcome. It's nice to have you here. We've had a number of times since I've been here where we have been confronted with this issue. Unfortunately haven't voted the way you would have liked me to as you know that, but I'm anxious to learn your views on this. I think it's going to be a good session and so I look forward to that. We can ask questions and have someone come up to answer them or if you would like to sit at the table now, we could ask questions in maybe a more comfortable setting and I have a hunch that maybe we'll have a number of questions. Perhaps we could begin with counsel discussing the issues from the perspective of the two drafts that are maybe the latest, and that's B and C, and talk about the pros and cons of each as they're expressed in those two documents. It can be a short one but get kind of introductory discussion on that.
>> All right. Thank you, chairman Walther. Good morning, commissioners, good morning to all the representatives of the socialist workers party. Agenda Document 17-01-A, B, and C are alternative draft responses to advisory opinion request submitted by the socialist workers party, the socialist workers campaign committee, and committees supporting candidates of the socialist workers party. Socialist workers party was granted an exemption from certain disclosure obligations in the 1979 dissent decree due to the likelihood that supporters of the socialist workers would face governmental and threats over if their connections to the socialist party were disclosed. The extension was updated by an agreement in 1985 and further extended through advisory opinions issued in 1990, '96, 20/02, and 2008, and 2012. The 2012 advisory opinion extended the partial exemption through the end of 2016 and socialist workers party now asks for the exemption to be extended again. Drafts A and B conclude that socialist workers party has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that disclosing its supporters and vendors continues to subject those persons to threats, harassments, or reprizals. Drafts A and B therefore conclude that the partial reporting exemption should not be renewed. Draft C concludes that based on socialist workers party status as a minor party and the long history of harassment of the party and its supporters as well as as evidence of harassment last considered since the reporting exemption the partial reporting exemption should be renewed through December 31st, 2020. We received two comments from the requester addressing all three drafts and I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you, counsel. Are there any comments from the commissioners to begin with? Would someone like to lead off from the socialist workers with a brief discussion of the issues that you think are the most important to lead off with?
>> Certainly. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, good morning commissioners. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address this important issue. I believe all of our comments are included in --
>> Excuse me, are you Mr. frank.
>> Yes.
>> I believe all of our comments are included in the written comments we've submitted to the commission previously, but I'll give you a general summary of the highlights. Under established supreme court and the commission's own precedent, there's an important balancing test at issue whenever an encroach. On important first amendment rights to a privacy of belief and association are involved. And a disclosure can only be granted if the -- if there is a sufficiently important government interest involved that is substantially related to the disclosure that allows for the encroach. Of these first important first amendment rights. Our position is that given the facts presented here, the long history of the socialist workers party running presidential and vice presidential candidates for over 70 years as well as candidates in other state and federal elections and never winning any of those elections, the amounts of money involved within the last four-year period, talking about $82,000, a little over $82,000 in contributions, the vote totals in the 2016 election of just over 12,000 votes in the presidential election, the long history of a complete absence of any indication of corruption or voter diversion, the established and well-known principles of the socialist workers party that are unique and distinct from the positions of any other main stream party or candidate as well as several other factors, given all these factors there's simply not a sufficiently important governmental interest at issue here and certainly none that's been identified in either A or B to outweigh the important first amendment rights involved as well. The first amendment rights are we -- need breathing space to live and to thrive in our democracy and we need to provide protection for them wherever we can in the face of the government possesses and the incredible power to suddenly and seeming Lee facial ways repress descent. So I think we all need to be very careful in looking at seemingly facially neutral innocuous disclosure requirements and to look at the real impact that it may have on the diversity of opinions that exist, particularly for minor parties such as the Socialist Workers Party. So given the -- what we view as the failure to establish any sufficiently important governmental interest or one that has a substantial relation to the disclosure requirements involved here, there's simply not enough evidence to require disclosure here and an exemption should be granted. Under the commission and supreme court's precedent, there's a balancing test as the commissioners well know, which the governmental interest is balanced against both past instances of threats, harassment, and reprizals as well as current instances of threats, harassments, and reprizals and to see whether or not those threats outweigh the governmental interest because the governmental interest is nill or almost nill clearly the established -- the long history of threats, harassments, and repridessals that the SWP and its contributors have experienced is more than sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the supreme court and the commission's own precedent. This long history has been recognized by the commission repeatedly, which is well documented and recognized by the commission but also the period from 1976 through 2012 where even drafts A and B recognize that there has been evidence of serious and widespread threats, harassment, and reprisals. Under Buckley VValejo, supreme court, past or present threats, harassment, reprize \{^le}\{^al} are sufficient. So evidence of past threats, harassment, or reprisals would be sufficient alone. Nonetheless, the SWP has provided strong evidence of continued threats, harassments, and reprisals of its supporters. In some we believe that with these important Fifth Amendment rights breathing space has to be allowed and not granting exemption here would send a dangerous -- would upset supreme court precedent and would send a dangerous message to other people who support minor political parties and candidates in positions that are outside the mainstream and so with that I hope that exemption is granted.
>> Thank you very much. Comments, Commissioner Goodman?
>> Mr. frank, you talked about the history of the Socialist Workers Party facing threats, harassment, stigmasation. Are you familiar with 1940's, '50s era, economist named Paul Swezy?
>> No, I'm not.
>> Any of your members familiar with Paul Swezy? He founded the publication monthly review? No, that's --
>> I am.
>> So you're familiar with the history of what happened to Paul Swezy in the 1950s at all? No? He was a Marxist economist who never supported the overthrow of his government and yet he was held into investigation by the attorney general of New Hampshire under the theory that he might present a threat of sub version to the United States Government. And there was a supreme court decision in 1957 called Swezy v. New Hampshire. Does that ring a bell to any of you? He was jailed because he wouldn't name the names of the founders of the prerogative party of New Hampshire. You might have caught a movie called Trumbo a couple years ago. It was one of the Hollywood ten. He was imprisoned for refusing to name the names of other members of the communist party before Congress. He went to prison. He lost his Fifth Amendment appeal in the 1940's and the U.S. supreme court would not grant serverty in his case. And that left many people in the Marxist and communist movement in the United States vulnerable it seems to these continuing subpoenas and investigations and to what threat they might pose to the United States Government. Subsequent to that, many socialists and Marxists faced a dilemma since the supreme court would not protect their First Amendment rights of associational privacy, some resorted to invoking their Fifth Amendment rights so they didn't have to name the names. Of the fellow members of communists and Marxist organizations the United States. That brought us to 1954 when Paul Swezy who taught at the university of New Hampshire. By the way, he had served the country and the United States army in World War II, he had served in the Roosevelt administration, and his goal to take new deal economics to the next level of implementation. And he was deemed -- because he was a Marxist economist he was deemed dangerous to the United States. So when he would not name the names of the other members of the prerogative party of New Hampshire, he was arrested and then he appealed first to the New Hampshire supreme court where he lost, and then to the United States supreme court where he once again asserted the First Amendment right that Dalton, Trumbo, and other members of the Hollywood ten would not have recognized. In 1957 on a day called red Monday the supreme court issued four supreme court decisions that people claimed would ruin our democracy and expose it to foreign threats. I think we've heard that more recently as well. One of the cases it decided was Swezy v. New Hampshire where six justices dismissed the contempt findings against Paul Swezy and the relevant decision for purposes of today was a concurring opinion by justice frank Ford joined by justice Harlow in which he recognized the First Amendment right of associational privacy and that we cannot associate and think freely -- we cannot think freely and share ideas if we cannot associate freely and therefore there was a realm of privacy around which Paul Swezy and other members of the prerogative party of New Hampshire had a right to associate without having to name the names. Now, some people believe that's historical relic of the red scare, the second red scare in America and that we are more enlight end today. I might add that concurring opinion of two justices in Swezy v. New Hampshire became the majority position of the court a year later in 1958 in NAACP versus Alabama. I'm sure you're well aware of that line of cases and why southern jurisdictions were requiring the NAACP to name the names of their members and supporters before they could get a license to march. Now, some people believe we are more enlight end today, that no one who would join a socialist or Marxist leaning organization in the United States would ever be threatened again with subpoena. You mentioned seemingly neutral laws that we're far more tolerant today than we were in the 1940's and '50s. And because of that enlighten. We no longer need to protect the names of members of organizations such as yours. So I'm asking are we that more enlightened? Are your people safe? Do people freely join your organization? Or are they concerned about the stigma and the threats and reprisals that could come from joining your organization? Can you address that?
>> I believe we've addressed at least some of those issues in the submissions that we've presented to the commission. The experience of the SWP in the last four and eight years and beyond has been that there remains significant fear within individuals who are interested in the SWP and its ideas, interested in contributing to the SWP, a fear that associating with the SWP will subject them to some sort of harassment, reprides \{^le}\{^al}, whether it be related to their work or within their community or otherwise. So I think the answer to that question would be, yes, there continues to be a significant and reasonable fear within the community of potential supporters that having information publicly disclosed about contributions to the SWP would subject them to harassment, reprisals, or other incidents. I would note that the world that we live in today is significantly different than the world in 1950s, '60s, or the 1970's and early '80s when the important supreme court decisions were issued on this issue Buckley V.Valejo and Brown versus a socialist campaign 1974 committee when a disclosure meant disclosing the names of contributors and expenditures at the office of the FEC, someone would have to come here and look at the files in order to find out that information. Nowadays contributions are readily available on the Internet and, in fact, there are various different websites that encourage people to look up information about their neighbors, about potential employees and that's a regular practice both within corporate America and noncorporate America. So I think there's a fear out there and that fear is reasonable and it plays very much into the reasonableness of the probability of threats, harassment, or reprisal which is part of the supreme court analysis.
>> I'd like to ask you to address the issue that I think comes up in this discussion, and I know it's come up recently, and that is we get it on the history. So I do fully understand that from Day one and clear back to my college days in the early '60s I majored in Russia and studied all about everything that was available to read at the time and I get it, but as time comes on then things change and we need to look as we go forward. And over the period of time it seems to me there's been -- and this is just an impression -- that the history that once was subject to fear really has ebbed to the point where it has to kind of fit in with the fierce that everybody has about some other parties that are out here. And I look at it from the perspective of, and the most recent example -- and I know you're aware of this -- Bernie sanders who has had a socialist -- been part of the socialist party, not necessarily the Socialist Workers Party. I'm wondering, that quickly and easily went into the electric rat without any major concern about what that word meant and it seemed to me -- you know, of course he's had millions of contributions and very popular in terms of obtaining votes, but are there aspects or elements of socialist theory that is espoused by someone like Senator Sanders versus the socialist workers party and what are the differences assuming that the differences are the ones who cause the fear in the people that might be donors?
>> Yes, I think the differences we have identified in our written comments. One of the principle ten covenants of the Socialist Workers Party is the abolition of the capitalist system and the establishment of a workers government without involvement of capitalist principles. The promotion and recognition of the Cuban revolution and the potential benefits that such an example could provide for workers in the United States, these are principles that are fundamentally different than the principles espoused by Bernie Sanders and I would assume that there is significantly different than the principles espoused by the individuals who responded to the polls cited in articles in drafts A and B where people self identified as socialists. It seems unclear at best and unlikely that those individuals were supporting the principles involved with the SWP. And the matter before the commission now is to look at the principles involved with the SWP, which we believe are significantly different, completely contrary to Bernie Sanders' idealogy, which is for free healthcare, to look, you know, at best he may describe himself as a democratic socialist, but even, you know, at times hedged on that. If pressed he would cite the examples of Scandinavian countries that provided free higher education and healthcare and other benefits, which are not at all the kinds of policy -- the principle foundation and the principles of the SWP. So I think therein lies the significant difference. I think one of the underlying ideas of reference to the Senator Sanders and his campaign and the general -- the presumed general acceptance of the concept of socialism is that now it's not as vilified a term and so -- but if that were the case and the SWP and its contributors were no longer subject to -- you know, if there was a parallel between those two concepts, one would have expected to see contributions and vote totals of the SWP, its candidates rise significantly as Bernie Sanders and his campaign succeeded. He was able to raise hundreds, tens and hundreds of millions of dollars and receive millions of votes. The SWP maintains this relatively the same vote totals that it historically has and indeed below some historic vote totals. So clearly there's a disjunket within the minds of the population between what's going on with Senator Sanders and what's at stake in the case at hand.
>> Thank you. And you're right, I see that and I also feel that while we're not there, there is a gravitation of acceptance in our electorate to consider issues such as universal healthcare, universal and whatever you call it and universal, at least education to some level. Those seem to be ones that are more accepting and at the same time my impression is that socialist worker party has advanced, slowly as it may be, in the election where you're to the point where you actually had some people who were delegates in a couple of states or getting there. When you consider that, I think mostly look at the prism we'll say the last four years. When I see that, I question whether or not the change in gravitation is such that it still justices disclosure of who the donors are. I recognize there hasn't been a lot of money received, and that's a legitimate question is, okay, we've only received $80,000 or $86,000, and whether or not there -- and that was anonymously. So I assume -- I don't know what it would be if somebody had to actually disclose their name, but to me disclosure is important. I'm going to ask you this too. In the Socialist Workers Party, is that a tenet that there should never be disclosure of campaign finance regardless of harassment, or is it something -- is it something to work toward to the point where someday we can do that, or is it somewhere wherein its basic tenet would not accept the concept of disclosure of donors in a different day?
>> I don't know if the Socialist Workers Party as a party has a tenet, has a position on that issue. I would recognize that supreme court precedent is quite clear that, you know, for minor political parties the standard is different than for other parties. So -- and the idea behind that is as the commission well knows is to try to maintain the free flow of an exchange of different views within our society and minor political parties represent a unique position under supreme court precedent, and the idea of exemption is to maintain those different and unorthodox or ideas that are outside the main stream, and that's the purpose of the exemption. Here the principle issue that I see, that we see here is there's just really no -- it hasn't been explained well or we don't see any sufficiently important government interest involved in disclosing who the 86, $82,000, who contributed the $82,000, and the risk is that, you know, fewer people support a party that has views outside the main stream, and it's not only the SWP. If exeming's not granted here there will be a joint effect on other minor parties because quite frankly if exemption is not granted on these facts, it's hard to imagine how a party could qualify for exemption in the future given the extensive history, including up until 2012 of threats, harassment, and reprisals, the very low vote totals, the very low amount of contributions, the fact that in no state in which the SWP ran a candidate was the difference between the two major party candidates anywhere close to the vote total that the SWP candidate received. So there heanlt been a clearly articulated government interest involved here and clearly not one with a substantial relationship to the disclosure requirement. So for that reason alone restrongly believe that exemption should be granted.
>> I'm going to turn it over to anybody else who would like to ask questions at this point. Thank you. Commissioner Goodman.
>> I suppose that one of the points that the chairman was getting at was as your ideas get absorbed into the democratic party or perhaps the Republican party, but as ideas get absorbed and you become less marginalized intellectually, that somehow you may lose your need for this exemption. I think that was the point being made. I wonder if you could perhaps observe the intellectual history of how your ideas have germinated, the obstacles you faced in promoting your ideas, and how many decades it has taken you to move some of your ideas into the democratic party main stream through a vehicle like the candidacy of Bernie Sanders or others. And I say this having represented a marginal candidate from the libertarian side who decided that he was better off trying to move his ideas and idealogy through the vessel of the Republican party. That was Ron Paul who decided he would be better off moving from a marginalized party into the main stream. So could you discuss that and give us some observation of what happens to the ideas and your ability to germ Nate and build ideas and push them into the main stream if your free speech is chilled through stigmasation, harassment, deterrence.
>> I guess my principle comment is that the SWP really does represent a unique and distinct point of view that is unlike the views of the libertarian party or other potential minor parties, political parties that have crossed over into our worked collaboratively or introduced their ideas into main stream politics. The Swezy has existed for over 75 years and has always represented and continues to represent really quite a truly unique and distinct viewpoint. It's speculation to say what would happen if the concepts of the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a workers government were to be injected into main stream politics, and when we get to that point I would -- you know, we can -- I would be able to discuss that more coherently and cogently but I think we're very far away from that point.
>> Your point is you haven't been able to make the dent yet?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Any further questions? Let's go back to Bernie Sanders though. Wasn't one of the main tenets I consider areas of strong support and have never talked to anybody from the campaign about any of this, but the very fact that the complaint was it's the 1 percent that control our country, it's the 1 percent that have the power, we've got to get rid of the 1 percent, we've got to level off the amount of income and the -- and share the welt? And doesn't tenets like that lend support to your concept, whether it's exactly yours or not, but it seemed to me even in our country there's increased issue about unsuccessful, recently as well, about the sharing of the wealth.
>> I mean, I think I would venture a guess to say that equality -- and I know that equality is a major issue of associate list workers party as it is with many, many parties how we get to income equality is a different issue and I think that's where you see the fundamental differences between a candidate like Bernie Sanders who would work with -- who is a sitting Senator in government and who would clearly has proposed to work within the constraints of the current economic system to try to redistribute wealth, there's a difference between those positions, the procedures and approach of how to get to income equality and the approaches of the SWP, which are significantly different. The SWP envisions a different world, a world where there's equality, there's income equality, but perhaps achieving it through different means. So therein lies the difference.
>> Could you elaborate on how there would be achieving it through different means of what I perceive to be what you're talking about now and that's through the democratic system that's in place. Is there an effort or desire to get there by some other means?
>> Well -- Steve Clark. These questions were litigated in federal court in the federal case that all of you have in front of you that the Socialist Workers Party as a Marxist party with a revolutionary perspective has the constitutional rights and liberties to present our views and campaign under the U.S. constitution. As our attorney said, our constitution, which is a public document, calls for the overthrow of the capitalist system, the establishment of a workers and farmers governance and joining in the worldwide struggle for socialism, we see the Cuban revolution as one of the key examples of what needs to be done by working people in this country and around the world. That is not the view of Bernie Sanders by any stretch of any imagination.
>> And I would just emphasize that I'm not quite sure where this line of questioning goes in the sense that it still doesn't address the fundamental issue, which is what is the compelling -- what is the sufficiently important government interest at issue here given the facts of the SWP? How does the relationship between Bernie Sanders' campaign and the idealogy of the SWP given the facts at hand, given the SWP's vote totals have not and contributions have not increased above historic levels and in fact are below historic levels. I understand there's an attempt to try to connect the two -- the Bernie Sanders' movement with the SWP, but apparently within the population there's -- that connection is not made. Maybe it will be made in the future, but given the facts presented here, there does not appear to be any connection between those two.
>> I really was trying to draw out the difference that you referred to, the distinction between Bernie Sanders or the democratic system that we presently have in place and how you want to get to a different democratic system or a different system that's not as democratic and whether the means is I think -- I see your publication is called the militant suggests that it might be something more than just an exchange of ideas. So I just was trying to discuss that with you. I notice that in the -- well, let's put it this way: I guess one of the ways that I would like to look at is what is it that is causing in your mind the harassment and the -- I'm not aware of any personal injury that was identified, but the fear of retaliation or reprisal, what is it that you think people are fearing?
>> I think there are several issues involved. First and foremost is the long history of threats, harassment, and reprisal that the SWP is experienced by both government actors and private actors. It's continued uninterrupted for over 70 years. This is a history that's well-known and continues to be supported on main stream publications, including "The New York Times" and ÒWashington PostÓ which continue to uncover articles and information about government surveillance and infiltration of the SWP and equating it to monitoring and surveillance that is documented today of other groups that advocate -- that engage in activism that the SWP that's also involved in SWP activities. So you have a well-known long history. It's connected in the main stream media to current well-known incidence of monitoring of protest groups at events and involving movements that the SWP is involved in, such as advocacy for immigrant rights, advocacy for the rights of the Muslim community, black lives matters communities and other protest movements. In addition you have well-known documented evidence through the snow den revelations of government surveillance generally. And then you have the introduction of the Internet, which as I discussed before, makes these disclosure requirements that much more magnified. The potential implications of these disclosure requirements that much more magnified. So you have individuals who, if they give money to the SWP potentially being exposed to negative consequences in their community in a way they weren't 20, 30, 40 years ago before the Internet. For all those reasons and others you see the fear within some of the potential supporters of the SWP as was presented in the documents submitted.
>> Let me ask you this in terms of the surveillance issue, I didn't see anything that suggested there was any surveillance other than a list of some ones that were listed, I guess, a few years back but wasn't a Socialist Workers. So do people -- my impression is -- get this sense from the days of old but the days of the last four years, there seems to be a piosity of information that would relate to surveillance over Socialist Workers Party or organized government harassment. Not to say there can't be episodes of clearly inappropriate police conduct. We see that all the time. And it's not necessarily directed to our party but it just happens because people are in tough circumstances and tough things happen but I'm unaware of anything where there's any kind of an organized effort on the part of either the government or the police to inhibit the activities of the Socialist Workers Party in the last four years at least. The only one that I can recall from the list that you gave was when there was a turmoil outside of the apartment building in -- there was a complaint and the police came and the police actually said you can go ahead and do it. That was the only time I can remember a brushup with the police except for maybe the incident where there was a vice president who was stopped both coming and going but never inhibited in terms of movement as far as I know. There was a loss of a cell phone, but there's nothing in the information to suggest it was any connection of the loss of that cell phone to Socialist Workers Party. In the documents we have it seems to be pretty thin there's a current fear that's based upon current events and that's sufficiently prevalent to justify a different treatment than other political parties.
>> I guess I would respond to that in a couple of ways. First is that even though some of the reports that have been publicized to date have included government surveillance monitoring haven't included specific information or documents related to the SWP. That doesn't mean they don't exist or that the SWP is not being monitored or surveilled as the commission well knows and as included in our submission, evidence of coIntel probe and government surveillance and infiltration was only recognized after 13 years of litigation in the federal courts and in fact the government had initially denied involvement in certain burglaries and it was only after extensive discovery, this is litigation discovery that minor political parties and others can scarcely afford with resources of $82,000 a year in political contributions, I'm sure as you can well imagine. So merely because the the publicly available reports don't include evidence of specific SWP harassment, that doesn't -- or monitoring that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, I think the evidence that does exist of surveillance of the same types of communities and activities that the SWP supports and engages in activities and activism that the SWP engageses is a strong circumstantial evidence that that same type of government monitoring continues to this day. Accepting this kind of circumstantial evidence is consistent with the supreme court admonition that the evidentiary bar for exemption requests below and that the commission and courts be flexible in receiving different forms of evidence to satisfy the requirements of the supreme court and this commission. In addition, there were -- talking about the evidence of -- within the last four years in addition there were two incidents presented to the commission of police interruption. In addition to nine documented incidents of prison officials improperly seizing and sense ring issues of the militant that were supposed to be delivered to prisoners who were interested in receiving information about the SWP and its beliefs, it's a strong indication that government animosity directed towards the SWP continues to exist. The militant was reporting on on news of the day that was broadly reported by other main stream medias such as "The New York Times," Wall Street Journal and yet the militant was the only paper to be singled out to our knowledge. It was only through the intervention of attorneys that these papers in some cases have been released and in other cases appeals remain pending, including in Attica where the appeal remains pending outside of the regulatory period in which the appeal board has to respond. We continue to see evidence of government harassment through private harassment and what you referred to with a cell phone was a burglary into a candidate's home in which only selected personal political files were scattered or affected by the burglary and as we don't know exactly what the intention was of the burglar's -- substantial every day this was an outspoken SWP candidate. Substantial evidence is -- this is in addition to other evidence provided in the SWP's submission. The last point I would just make is that even though the number of police interactions may have decreased in this four-year period compared to other periods in which the SWP was requested exemption, the SWP has changed its campaigning techniques as noted in our submission and presidential cycle has gone door to door as opposed to sitting at public tables. It was principally during the public table distributions and advocacy in the prior periods where the SWP would experience police harassment. In fact, it continues to experience police harassment when it does engage in tabling, but because. Change in tactics that has partially been reflected in the types of incidence that are presented in the current submission.
>> Thank you.
>> There are obviously different lines of supreme court cases, some that call for disclosure and that's one that people talk about a lot. There's a lot of news reports now and it's hard to be against disclosure especially now but there's obviously another line that we're talking about here today that says despite the overarching interest in disclosure there is a line of cases that the supreme court has recognized that certain groups don't need to disclose, which is what we're talking about and you've received that protection both in federal court and here on a number of occasions: I would not want to be a contributor to the Socialist Workers Party living in little Havana and I also wouldn't want to be a contributor to the tea party living in San Francisco. It just is truth that there are evidenced of harassment that come up in all different facets: You said earlier that if not us then who. And you said that if you don't get the exemption that it probably would chill other groups as well and I wondered if you would talk about that. In addition whether or not Bernie Sanders all of a sudden decides the Cuban revolution was a good thing, which I don't anticipate happening, but even if he does do that that's to me irrelevant with respect to the legal analysis. The legal analysis is whether or not is the group as a minority party and that the reason for that is if it's a minor party, if it's not the Republican party or the democratic -- or as some would like to say the democratic party --
>> That's the name of it.
>> That's the name of it. That's what they like to say. If it's not one of the two major parties there's not that safety in numbers. There's not that group ability to associate with other people and not have your views be so radical. I mean, in a lot of ways the views of a lot of different groups on the spectrum on either side are radical, they're not main stream, they're minor parties which is why you get the exemption. I for one don't want to delve too deeply into what lefnl of harassment we're talking about. I think, you know, any level of harassment, you know, to an extent is harassment enough, and as you said the courts have said, you know, look at it in way more of accepting the line of harassment as a problem because the government interest in disclosure for these minor parties is diminished. And that's just what the case law says. So I wonder if you could talk for a minute about other groups. One part of your comment on Page 4 of your most recent comment on April 16th, the last full paragraph before the bullet, you say SWP has presented evidence of both past and present threats, harassment and repricals against SWP supporters, a record long recognized as unmatched by any other applicant for exemption, and it is true that I think you're the only one that has a current exemption before the FEC but my understanding is you're not arguing that you should be the only one either?
>> That's correct. We don't argue that we should be the only one capable of receiving exemption. Quite the contrary. We fully support the position you very eloquently articulated which is that there's a line of supreme court cases that clearly holds that parties that can establish that they're minority political parties are entitled to special protections of their first -- of the important First Amendment rights of them and their supporters. And the purpose behind that is to maintain a very diverse range of ideas that float around in our society and to recognize the precarious situation that minor political parties that don't have the financial and the popular support of main stream parties has, the precarious situation that they have. So if a party can qualify as a minor political party they should be able to and can show that the reasonable probability of threats, harassment, and reprials out weighs whatever the government -- the substantially important government interest that sufficiently support support of government interest that's substantially related to disclosure, if it can outweigh that then it's entitled to exemption. That analysis has to be done as you I think quite right flee point out on the basis of the facts presented. And here our position is the facts presented quite clearly show that the government interest is nill or almost nill and that weighs against this very long history of threats, harassment, or reprisals and evidence of current. So when you balance, there's just no question that the past and present threats, harassment, and reprisals outweigh the current government interest in disclosure.
>> Thank you.
>> Anything further? Commissioner Weintraub?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for all four of you coming and for all the effort that you have put into this. We've been here before. I've been here before. And I have, I think twice, voted to grant this exemption. I have done that despite the fact that I'm a strong believer in the really important principles of disclosure that underline the campaign finance laws and that have been up held by the supreme court by an eight to one margin. One of the few things that the court almost unanimously actually agrees on in this area. We don't get five/four decisions on disclosure. Last time it was an eight to/one because it's important to the electorate to have that information. And there are frankly a lot of people who would rather not give us that information and a lot of people who make the argument that, you know, we don't want to tell anybody who we're supporting because we think we're going to get harassed. So it's a principle that could become elastic and undermine the law at large. Now, the courts have recognized that minor parties are in an unusual situation, but they have not gone so far as to say minor parties don't have any disclosure obligations and they have not gone so far even in granting the socialist worker parties exemption to saying it's permanent. You know, we've seen this long and serious history and therefore we're giving you a permanent exemption from disclosure. It's not what they did. And that's why you have to come back every four or so years and ask for it to be renewed. And the fact that you have to come back every four years and ask for it to be renewed I think demonstrates that you need to continually demonstrate that it's not just a historical artifact, that however bad things were in the '40s or '50s or '70s that you continue to have a legitimate concern about harassment. I went back and re-read the this you are good Marshal's opinion in Brown V. Socialist Workers, and what he said was there that at that time introduced proof of specific incidence of private and government hostility toward the SWP and its members within the four years preceding the trial. These incidents included threatening phone calls and hate mail, the burning of SWP literature, the destruction of SWP property, police harassment of a party candidate and the firing of shots as an SWP office. There was evidence of firings, there was history of FBI surveillance, of a program including disclosing to the press the criminal records of SWP candidates and sending anonymous letters to members, supporters, spouseses and employers. So there was a serious history there of bona fide harassment and people had legitimate concerns about it, but as I said, you have to come back every four years and I think not just rely on what happened decades ago and as I look at the evidence that you have presented, and I believe the burden is on you to present evidence that this situation persists. It seems to me that the evidence has gotten weaker and weaker over time. And that's a good thing. That's excellent news, really. But last time I recall looking at it and saying it's really not overwhelmingly compelling but balancing all the concerns I decided to vote for it last time, but I was really sort of on the fence last time and decided to vote in favor of the exemption. But when I look at the evidence that you've presented in connection with this current request, it seems to me that there just is not very much there that demonstrates an on-going, concurrent concern over harassment that I think is in a unique case by itself that, you know, automatic sorts of other donors might not say I just don't want people to know who I'm supporting politically because it would be unpopular in my neighborhood. You know, you don't have to be a supporter of the SWP in what disution, little Havana?
>> Little Havana.
>> You know, you might be a supporter of some other left wing candidate or cause and feel like you would be subjected to harassment or, you know, to the contrary, as my colleague indicated, you know, if you live in San Francisco and support conservative causes or candidates you might say I don't want people to know about that because I think I'm going to get grief about that. I think it has to be more serious than that otherwise the entire disclosure system will crumble. You know, even recognizing the unique history and even recognizing the status of minor party candidates has been the special status of the courts have granted, I think there still has to be some evidence of on-going harassment and I'm just not seeing anything that rises to the level of the kind of incidence that thur good marshal was describing when he wrote about this decades ago. Although I've supported this before it is difficult for me to say that the exemption is still warranted.
>> I would just say that I agree that a regular review of the status is not -- is a reasonable request and I think is required and may be required. Certainly there's not -- as the supreme court held there's not a per se exemption for minor political parties but I think at every interval the balancing test has to occur. One of the fundamental questions is what is the interest of the government in disclosure and balance that against the potential of, you know, a minor political party losing much-needed support and the ability for it to promote its message within our society. Minor and political parties hold the unique status. That's what the supreme court precedent held. So it's not the same as, you know, a support -- potential supporter of a major party. You might say, well, I don't want to contribute because maybe, you know, someone will criticize me because I live because I'm a republic can in San Francisco or, you know, I'm a socialist in little Havana or I'm a Democrat in the heart of Alabama. It's not the same because the democratic party and the Republican party do not have as much at risk as minor political parties. Minor political parties when you're talking about $82,000 of contributions annually, the potential for falloff is much more significant than when you're talking about the democratic party that's able to raise $800 million in contributions. Additionally, you know, even though the number type of incidence of harassment may be different this time than other times, you know, that's in part reflective of the approach that the SWP has taken in terms of its advocacy. It's also, you know, I think I would urge the commission to be cognizant of the fact that, you know, even 25 incidence of harassment compared to the number of contributors to the SWP is a significant percentage, and if you were to proportionally pair that out to the Republican party or democratic party or will I be attorney party that has significantly for more, you're talking about tens of thousands of incidents. So I would say that the balancing test can be and should be done regularly but we have to I think be honest about what's really at stake here and look he at the facts presented. In our estimation we think that the evidence not only of past but of current threats, harassment, and reprisals is significant, and certainly sufficient to support and satisfy the supreme court requirement. Although it's different than the evidence presented in Brown in 1982 Brown was not a basement. You know, it was not the minimum. Those were the facts in 1982 and so the facts are different here but we believe they're sufficient to satisfy the balancing test. And, you know, just add as a general comment that, you know, the stakes are increased even more in today's environment where there's a real poltlarsation within the public dialogue. You see articles in the "New York Times" today about demonstrations at Berkeley and other campuses around the country and other locations where individuals with ideas outside the main stream, whether they be white sprem Chris groups or fash cysts are being -- their voice is being quelled because of demonstrations. You see -- you can see how the reasonableness of individual's fear is magnified in today's environment. And the fear of harassment I think plays a significant role within the supreme court analysis of whether or not minor political parties can survive in today's environment.
>> But if I may, Mr. Chairman.
>> Of course.
>> We're not talking about minor political parties at large. In fact, you are the only political party that has ever gotten this exemption. So we're just talking about you. And I think that you need to come up with evidence that people are being harassed because of their affiliation with the Socialist Workers Party, not because they're fascists or nationalists or, you know, whatever other group is unpopular today. Those people aren't in front of us asking for an exemption. You're here asking for an exemption and I don't think you can rely on the fact that people at large are getting harassed out there, because as I said, anybody could say the same thing. Any donor could come in here and say I don't want to -- and we have had donors who have come in and said this, they have looked for ways that some of us have deemed legal and others of us have deemed not so legal to avoid disclosing their names because of the polarized political environment and people are more hot tempered about things these days. I think you're in a unique situation and you have to make a unique show being your people, not about other people.
>> Point is well taken. I mean, we've just in this last submission to the comments and of course it's been a short time, but we submitted one additional declaration by Steve Kobach who's indicated that he's talked to supporters --
>> A supporter.
>> A supporter. Unfortunately with a minor political party oftentimes information is not -- might not have the infrastructure of a major political party. You know, you may not get information about every potential supporter or current supporter who's with drawing support or potential supporter who decides not to give support, but we have at the very least presented, you know, in response to some of the drafts, you know, filed here, evidence of, you know, one supporter who based on the current environment has decided not to support the SWP. So this -- the number of supporters is different within the SWP than for other parties and that has to be taken -- I think the proportionality has to be taken into account as well. So when you're talking about the tea party or you're talking about the libertarian party, the number of supporters there and how many people withdraw is going to be different than when you're talking about 86 individuals who provided contributions above the 200-dollar threshold in the last four-year period and similar numbers in the past. One or two or five contributors can be -- is significant and is much more significant for minor political parties with these facts than for even other minor political parties, let alone major political parties.
>> Commissioner Petersen?
>> If you, Mr. Chairman. This question of the evidentiary shown that you must make in order to justify the continuing partial exemption from the disclosure requirements, it really does turn on the question of the government's interest. And as you pointed out, when it comes to minor parties, the strength of the government's interest really is a sliding scale. As the financial clout and electoral prospects of a political party and its candidates are greater than obviously the government's interest in those instances slarm increases. Flip side of that is if the financial clout of a minor party is minimal and the electoral prospects of its candidates are negligible then the government's interest is sufficiently weakened. You've mentioned the numbers of votes and amount of money that have been raised in the 2016 cycle. I think it's probably -- I think it's important to put that into context. So 12,000 votes were received by -- and I understand all Socialist Workers Party candidates in the 2016 cycle?
>> That's the presidential.
>> That's the presidential. So 12,000 votes in the presidential. There were 137 million votes cast in the 2016 presidential race. So we're talking about fractions of 1 percent. The money that was raised in the 2016 cycle, $82,000, that's in the context of $6.8 billion being spent during the 2016 cycle. So in light of those numbers, in that context, the government's interest, as we mentioned, which is on a sliding scale, in disclosure in this particular instance is exceedingly attenuated. And so consequently the evidencery showing that must be demonstrated by the SWP is similarly not prohibitive. As you mentioned the relive court cases in this realm don't require a high bar, it's a reasonable probability and that analysis has to take place in the context of what is the government's interest, which as I pointed out is exceedingly small in this particular case. And what you have demonstrated to us, it may not be overly extensive and as my colleague Commissioner Weintraub has pointed out, it's a positive trend that the number of incidences and the severity of them has decreased, but that doesn't mean that that's got to be weighinged in light of what the government's interest is in this particular case, and government's interest just is not -- is just not weighty in this particular instance. So I don't view this as requiring rams and rams of evidence in order to justify the on-going partial exemption from the reporting requirements. In light of the fact of the SWP being a minor party and in light of the numbers, you know, in terms of the votes, money raised, the governments interest here may not be nill but it's -- I think it's close to that in this particular case and it's for that reason that I think that the SWP has demonstrated sufficiently that it warrants the on-going for another four years in the the commission reviews it again, an extension of the reporting exemption that you have enjoyed thus far. So at the appropriate time when we go into motions I'll be planning to support Draft C.
>> Is Commissioner Goodman?
>> Yeah, I can abbreviate mycomments because as commissioner Petersen stated more eloquently some of the points I was going to make. I didn't understand you to say that because a trump supporter got punished in Berkeley you therefore deserve an exemption from this law. I understood you to say that in the context of polarization of politics in today and in light of decades of history of harassment and stigmatization and margesation of Marxists and socialists and given a continuing record that may not be as voluminous as you had four years ago but there is a record that in light of all that context the perception and effect of joining with you if names are disclosed carries a quite reasonable risk that deters your First Amendment rights and that's the way in which I understood the context that you provided.
>> Anything further? There's been a conversation in the documents about how small and regenerated now, how small of pieces of the pie your organization consists of in the overall electorate, but I think it's important to remember that -- and let me go back. People talk about the government's interest. It's the people's interest. This isn't a government protected right. It's the right for the people to know about where the money's coming from in an election and make their own decisions about whether or not they want to support the people that are putting money in a particular place. So I think the nomenclature we use should really be the people's interest and it's the government that maybe protecting it through litigation, but -- and documents, but to me all of us who go to the polls want to know really where the money's coming from and increasingly so. So if you look at any organization, you can look at the Bush/gore case, one county involved. You can look at the state of Nevada in which I'm from where there was a Senator that ran and won the whole state by 400 votes, give or take ten or 15 votes. And that particular Senator became majority leader and had a lot to do with the direction of our country and what we did and how we did it. Right or wrong the point that I'm making is a very small number of votes can make a very big difference and especially so I think now when we have a voice of small people, small numbers of people can have a great reach and if properly enunciated sometimes the race is never quite anticipated. And we've seen in this election recently the effect that the electorate can be affected by a small group of people or relevant -- or just hitting the right cord. I don't think we should minimize the importance of what we do here today just because this particular organization is small or that it has a small budget. If you have a strong message, to hell with the budget, right, we've seen that in a large degree in our recent politics. So I don't think that's a factor that's going to persuade me on that, and I go back to -- I know some people here don't follow Skalika's philosophy to the same degree that some of others of us do but he did make the point, I know you're quite aware of it, requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage without which democracy is doomed and emphasized the word courage. For my part I do not look forward to a society which thanks to the speak court campaigns anonymously, and in parentheses is McIntire and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from the public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the home of the brave. I think that is a factor that we always must keep in mind when we make a decision on trying to balance our interest is the right to know is the most critical part of the election system. That's the only reason we're here is to provide the electorate with information regarding where the money is going and where it's coming from. And that's what sparked the genesis of this organization and that's one of our most important things that I think we can't take that lightly. So to me when we start to balance, those are considerations on my mind.
>> May I comment on that?
>> Of course. By the way, I want to compliment you on your briefs. Really quite well done, your letters.
>> Thank you very much. Regarding the point about where the money comes from, you know, as the supreme court case has made quite clear, that is an important consideration for the commission, but the supreme court has articulated only three principle interests that the government or the people have in disclosure. One is to in the principle concern that all of the supreme court cases and many of the district court and circuit court cases have focused on is the weeding out corruption, whether it be quid pro quo corruption or a vote diversion as drafts A and B have cited. In this case given the facts presented here, neither of those concerns are at issue. There's no potential for quid pro quo corruption because in the 70 years that the SWP has run candidates it has never won an elected office. Vote diversion is not an issue because even though there may have been summaries decided by a small number of votes in all of the races has demonstrated in our submission in which the SWP ran the candidate, the vote total that the SWP candidate received was nowhere close to flipping that individual race. The closest was a race in which a Democrat won in Minnesota by 40 plus thousand votes and the SWP candidate received fewer than 2,000 votes and, in fact, you know, there were several other parties that had gained more votes than the SWP candidate. So there was -- there's no -- and in the 70-plus years that the SWP has run candidates, there's been absolutely no evidence of vote diversion, and so as the supreme court has indicated, the mere possibility or potential for there to be an issue does not justify the significant encroach. On important First Amendment rights. There has to be an articulated sufficiently important government or public interest and then a substantial relationship between that interest in the disclosure and case at hand. And here based on the identified three public or governmental interests, that just doesn't exist. The two other interests have never been raised gh in in this proceeding and the supreme court has consistently ruled there's no interest in the population of knowing what the -- readily available and well-known in any occasions or any of its literature in the reporting requirements and otherwise are addressed. The concern -- and finally just concerning your citation to justice Scalia in the doe case I would just point out that doe V. Reid was a case involving refer Ren it comes and a significant portion of that decision and justice scalia's was making -- through referendum and the supreme court has made a distinction between that and the anonymity that has been historically protected for contributors and that contributors have a different interest involved than individuals signing a legislative referendum.
>> Anything further? Commissioner Weintraub.
>> But doesn't that go the wrong way for you? I mean, the court has historically held -- there's a stronger interest in disclosing the names of donors to candidates in political parties than to people supporting referenda. I agree with your argument but I think it cuts against you. And I'll -- it's funny, we were -- my staff was sending me the same quotes from doe V. Reid as you were reading them, we're all thinking about the same cases. One of the other comments that justice Scalia made was the First Amendment doesn't protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls which goes back to the point that I was making before that I think you still need to come up with some evidence of something serious, not just an in\{^co}\could he wait fear of -- but some actual bad things going on. Clearly happens historically. I happened to be visiting the African history museum yesterday, which I recommend to everybody. So the history of bad acts to suppress political activity by unpopular and disenfranchised people in our society is very present in my mind today, but I think you still need to show some kind of evidence that this is still going on, and it strikes me that, you know, I've looked at what you have presented to us and it just -- I know, there's got to be something there.
>> I mean, I would just point out -- make two comernts. One is, I know -- and we've noted in the comments that both drafts A and B at least appear to impose a requirement that serious incidence of threats, harassing, and reprisal be demonstrated, which I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at Commissioner Weintraub, but the supreme court precedent require serious incidents of threats, harassment, and repriestles. It requires reasonable probability. You may in various cases and certain concurrences in supreme court and other courts have held that evidence of serious threatsz, harassments, and reprisals has been presented but never been required. I think that's on important distinction to make because, you know, it may not be that the potential contributor is necessarily going to look at the seriousness of the threats, harassments, and reprisals. It may not seem serious to you but may be very serious to that person or may not be serious but it's sufficient to prohibit them from contributing or participating within a minor political party such as the SWP. That's significant, and that's significant in the supreme court line of inquiry. And I would just say that, you know, there's a -- I think as Commissioner Petersen actively pointed out, our position is that there's really a sliding scale here and that as the government's interest in disclosure increases, for example, if there were to be votes cast in one or more several states in which the SWP could have flipped the election that potentially does increase the government's interest in disclosure and that may increase the onus on the minor political party to provide evidence of more or different types of harassment, threats, and reprisals. For example, in the 1982 Brown case, it was noted that there were 14,000 votes and they had over 7,000 votes. And yet based on the evidence of -- the evidence that you, Commissioner Weintraub, had cited, that was sufficient to overcome the government's interest in that case.
>> (Away from microphone).
>> And here we have vote totals that are significantly below that and so there's a -- I would argue that there's a sliding scale. I would argue that the supreme court precedent requires a sliding scale of evidence that would be sufficient to satisfy the supreme court requirement.
>> I hear what you're saying and, you know, to go back to what Commissioner Petersen was saying, if there is a balancing test to be made and Commissioner Petersen has made the point thanks the governmental interest is fairly light there's still got to be something on the other side to -- that's heavier than that. I think it's got to be something that concerns.
>> Any further comment, questions? Anything further you would like to add to this? [ PAUSE ]
>> Let's go ahead and proceed. Do we have a motion? Madam vice chair.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move approval of Agenda Document No. 17-01-C, otherwise known as Draft C in the Socialist Workers Party AO2016-23.
>> Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Opposed? No. The motion fails I have voted against commissioner Weintraub and Commissioner Petersen. Go ahead. Commissioner Weintraub.
>> Not that this will pass either, but just for completion sake, with respect to the Socialist Workers Party advisory request advisory opinion request 2016-23, I move approval of Agenda Document 17-01B, also known as Draft B.
>> Any discussion? If not, all in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Opposed?
>> No.
>> The motion fails. I voted in favor. Commissioner Weintraub voted in favor. And against was vice chair Commissioner Petersen and commissioner Goodman. Any further matters to take at this point? If not thank you very much. Appreciate it.
>> Thank you.
>> Let's take a break for 15 minutes. (Break).
>> We're going to resume now and we'll take up division recommendation memorandum on the Colorado Republican committee CRC A13-twelve. Commissioner Goodman.
>> The Colorado Republican party submitted some information, what was that, two or three weeks ago?
>> March 20th.
>> Which caused some adjustments in audits analysis of its findings and I believe the commission should credit the late arriving information wasn't necessarily entirely favorable to the findings that are being recommend but I think we ought to credit that information and get the most accurate analysis from our auditors before us when we debate the audit report and therefore I move that the commission direct the audit division to withdraw the current ADRM and submittal a revised ADRM incorporating the late-submitted information to the commission at which point we can take up the ADRM for substantive action.
>> Thank you very much. Do I hear a moti We need a second. All in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Any opposed?
>> The motion passes unanimously. I think that concludes the open session.
>> Commissioner, we also need to raise the issue of management administrative matters before we adjourn.
>> Are there any management or administrative matters to discuss?
>> There are none.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Meeting's adjourned.