Briefing on The Federal Election Commission's Role in Enforcing Campaign Finance Law

MODERATOR: So good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center’s briefing on the Federal Election Commission’s role in campaign finance law. My name is Jake Goshert. I’ll be the moderator for today’s briefing. A few reminders before we get started. The briefing will be on the record. We will post a transcript and a video of the briefing on our website, fpc.state.gov. For the journalists joining us on Zoom, please take a moment now to rename yourself with your name, your outlet, and your country so we know who’s joining us. Our distinguished briefer today is Commissioner Shana Broussard, one of the six bipartisan commissioners who lead the Federal Elections Commission, which is an independent regulatory agency. After Commissioner Broussard’s opening remarks, we’ll be joined by Myles Martin from the FEC’s press office, who will provide a short demonstration on the research capabilities of their website before we go into a Q&A session with the commissioner. And with that, I’m going to turn it over to Commissioner Broussard. MS BROUSSARD: Thank you. So good afternoon. I’d like to thank the State Department for inviting me to speak with you today. As was mentioned, I am a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. I am one of six commissioners, all of whom are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. By law, the commission cannot have more than three members from one party. I am a Democratic commissioner and currently serve with three Republicans and two other Democrats. I have worked at the commission since 2008, first as a staff attorney in the Enforcement Division, then as counsel to Commissioner Steve Walther, and then became a commissioner myself in December of 2020. So I have seen how the laws have developed and how the commission’s priorities and challenges have shifted over time, and I’d like to provide you with a brief overview of the workings of the agency. So the Federal Election Commission, or the FEC as you’re going to hear me say it, is the federal agency in charge of regulating money in politics. The commission was created by Congress in the aftermath of the Watergate political scandal when Congress recognized that a properly functioning democracy requires a well-informed public and that citizens should know how money is used to influence elections and that they should be armed with that knowledge when they cast their vote in federal elections. The commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the civil enforcement of federal campaign finance laws. Separately, the Department of Justice handles criminal violations of the law. As such, the FEC’s responsibilities include collecting and disclosing campaign finance information like who is raising and spending money on our elections, enforcing provisions of the federal election campaign finance act – FECA, as we like to say in our little world – the law governing campaign finance, and overseeing public funding of presidential elections. The commission may issue regulations, advisory opinions, and policies and procedures all to guide the regulated community in complying with law, and it may fine persons or entities for violations of the law. I view our mission of the agency as strengthening our democracy and protecting the integrity of the federal campaign finance process, one, by providing transparency to the public about the money that is used in federal elections; and, two, by fairly enforcing and administering our federal campaign finance laws. One of those things that we’re important about with the agency is disclosure, and it is one of the most important tasks that we do is collect and report campaign finance data. And Myles is going to tell you a little bit about that more and show you that exactly on our website. All federal candidates, super PACs, and other groups spending money to influence our elections must report their political activities. For campaigns and PACs, that means reporting who is financing your organization as well as reporting how you’re spending your money. And anyone paying for independent expenditures, electioneering communications that reach a certain amount, have to file reports disclosing that activity. Our Reports Analysis Division receives that information, reviews the reports, and may send what is called a Request for Information for additional information to committees if they notice something that looks like a mistake or a potential campaign finance violation. These requests are part of the public record. They are available on our website and they can sometimes be a source of information for your reporting. All of this information, these requests, contribution information and spending information is all publicly posted on our website, as you’ll see. Groups like Open Secrets aggregate that information, but you can also go to straight to the source on the commission’s website. Collecting this information is a big job, and especially as campaign spending grows to exponential amounts. Based on FEC data, Open Secrets calculated that spending in the 2022 midterm elections set a record of nearly $9 billion compared to $7 billion in the 2018 midterm election. This followed record spending in the 2020 general election cycle which totaled nearly $14.4 billion, more than double 6.5 billion that was spent in the 2016 cycle. What I say is I think we see a pattern that’s happening here. And making it far – by far the most expensive election ever. Per the post-election analysis by Open Secrets, the six most expensive races in the ’22 midterm elections were the Senate races in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Nevada. And looking back at the 2022 midterm elections, the projection of $10 billion on political advertising spending alone outpaced the total political spending in the 2018 midterms. It should be no surprise that election spending in 2024 is on pace again to set new records. In January, Open Secrets reported that the outside spending alone for super PACs and other groups already totaled $318 million, almost double the previous record of $162 million at the same point in the 2016 election cycle. So this is what I say: It is critical to a well-functioning democracy that we know where that money comes from. Now, this is where it’s important for all of you, is the role of the press in this. The press is an important part of the agency’s fundamental – is important to the agency’s fundamental mission to promote transparency in elections. While we collect the data and publish contributions and expenditure information, it is the press that often makes that information accessible to the public. And the press articles are sometimes how complainants and enforcement matters first learn of potential violations of the law before bringing the issues to us. For example, there are two enforcement matters specifically tied to the prohibition on foreign national spending in U.S. elections, and both resulted in civil penalties and a knowing and willful violation for one of these. These are not the kind of violations that we can uncover just by looking at contribution reports. In one matter, a watchdog group filed a complaint citing a New York Times article which reported that a Canadian citizen had participated in the decision to contribute. And in the second, reporters went undercover as fictitious foreign nationals allegedly interested in contributing 2 million to a PAC. These cases highlight how vital it is that we have a healthy press reporting on potential violations. By statute, we cannot investigate at the FEC unless we have four commissioners agree that there is reason to believe that a violation has occurred or will occur. We don’t have any investigative powers to interview witnesses or subpoena documents before that stage. Of course, we don’t rely only on press articles in coming to enforcement decisions. We look at the complaints and the responses, evaluate the law, evaluate the facts, and then come to our decisions. But oftentimes, it is the press – it is you – who is essentially – who essentially blows the whistle that there may have been a violation. As money spent on federal elections has exploded over the last two decades, this spending has created enormous challenges to the regulation of campaign finance, particularly due to outdated laws and regulations. Beginning with Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court has emphasized that federal campaign finance laws implicate core speech protected by the First Amendment, so I am always mindful of the unique relationship between federal campaign finance laws and the First Amendment and the careful balancing act that must occur in matters that come before me as a commissioner. Since Buckley was decided over 45 years ago, advances in technology have changed the way in which modern campaigns and other political actors engage in election-related activity. For instance, political advertising has shifted from the so-called traditional news sources such as television, radio, newspapers, to texting, online advertising, including through social media and streaming services. Without robust regulation, this can be, frankly, dangerous when we consider the widespread use of disinformation campaigns, such as the numerous instances reported in the 2016 election cycle. The decisive shift to online political advertising and the use of microtargeting in disinformation have made effective disclosure more important than ever. Not only does microtargeting make it easier for the misinformation to spread and for political spenders to sow division in our country, but political spenders can do so by concealing their – who they really are and who funded their ad spending. And by carrying out their social media campaigns in this manner, voters are deprived of the valuable information on who is speaking to influence and why, and this prevents effective counter-speech. This is why I believe that the commission should do more to enforce and strengthen the disclosure laws to respond to online advertising in a world of rapid technological change. In December of 2022, after 11 years of considering this matter, the commission published a final rule and an explanation and justification for revising the definition of public communication, and the requirement concerning disclaimers on certain public communications placed for a fee on the internet. The regulation clarifies how the disclaimer requirements apply to internet public communications and allow for an adapted disclaimer to be used under specific circumstances. In addition, Congress should act to close existing loopholes that allow political actors to run their ads online without having to disclose them to the commission, effectively concealing the source of the ads and the amounts spent on them. FECA requires the disclosure of a certain category of communications called electioneering communications. And election – and electioneering communication is a communication that is broadcast on a cable or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate, it’s publicly distributed within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the election, and it’s targeted to the relevant electorate. Entities that run such communications must disclose them in filings with the FEC, but these requirements do not apply to online political ads. In other words, a group can spend millions of dollars funding these political ads that feature federal candidates online without having to disclose them, even though they would have to do so if they ran those ads on television. Proposed legislation such as the Honest Ads Act would extend these reporting requirements to online ads. I believe that this legislation is necessary to ensure that proper disclosure of political spending in our – that there is proper disclosure of political spending in our current environment. Another challenge that we face at this agency is dark money. It’s the unprecedented use of dark money in our elections. As we all know, the United States Supreme Court issued the decision in 2010 of Citizen United that invalidated FECA’s ban on corporate and union spending on independent expenditures. This overturned decades of precedent. The court explained that the prohibition acted as a ban on free speech in violation of the First Amendment. At the same time, the court linked this holding to another holding in the opinion in which the eight justices – eight of the justices reaffirmed the constitutionality of the disclosure obligations. In the majority, Justice Kennedy explained that the court’s ruling would lead to a new campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure. Transparency, the court explained, enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. Perhaps this is the theory in case. The more information that a voter has about who is contributing to candidates on a ballot and in what amounts or which super PACs are funding ads for or against candidates, the more democracy is enhanced. And that is how it should be. But in the aftermath of Citizens United, the prediction regarding effective disclosure doesn’t appear to have come to fruition. A significant amount of election-related spending is taking place in secret, especially on the internet, and massive super PACs – massive amounts of money are flowing from wealthy donors to corporations to super PACs and other corporate entities masquerading as nonprofits. And the commission is frequently confronted with these issues involving whether and to what extent corporate and union spending to influence elections should be disclosed, including whether a 501(c)(4) group’s political spending rises to the level at which they have become a political committee and must file and report with our agency. And as you can imagine, contributors have very different views on what the FEC can and should do. As you may be aware, the commission has previously struggled with deadlock. We need four votes to exercise many of our powers, such as opening investigations, issuing advisory opinions, but we often deadlock into three-three splits. The trend emerged over 15 years or so ago, and it received a lot of attention. However, I think as of recent, in the last three years, the commission has worked harder towards the inevitability of reaching four votes to be successful, and I think that becomes a greater point of disclosure for the public. There was a news report in 2022 that reported that our attorneys have recommended finding reason to believe that a violation occurred in 24 separate matters involving the former president, and we did not move forward on one of those matters. Today, the record stands at 0 in 29 where staff has recommended moving forward but the commission has been unable to garner the four votes necessary. Meanwhile, courts are advancing in separate criminal trials, some of which are related to the recent enforcement matters that were previously considered by the commission, many of which I thought should have gone forward. As for the more day-to-day challenges that we face in the terms of our ability to accomplish our mission and to continue to perform our transparency roles, I am concerned that our staffing and budget levels are not kept pace with the exponential growth in the volume of campaign finance. We risk another backlog like our 2021 numbers if we cannot fill open vacancies. Our current total staff is approximately 285 people. Compare that to 2009, when we had 359 staff. We are looking at more and more spending, and we simply don’t have the staff that we need. And I would say that our budget is a large explanation for these figures. Regardless, we should be in a better position in terms of staff heading into the general election. So while I’ve done all the doom and gloom, I have to say there is still some good news that I can tell you about. Since 2022, the agency has returned to its rulemaking responsibilities. I previously mentioned that we finished final rules for the internet disclaimer public communications definitions, but last March we were able to complete a rulemaking that is a personal passion of mine. This issue – the ability for candidates to use campaign funds for compensation while they’re campaigning – is very important. It has micro and macro implications. On a micro level, it’s about opening up the possibility of running for federal office for the stay-at-home parent, the disabled veteran, the young American right out of school, hourly wage earners. On a macro level, it enables our democracy to become more perfect by creating opportunities for our federal elective bodies to reflect the current demographics of our nation. There are real disparate barriers to entry for many Americans to run for office. These barriers have a direct impact on diversity in our elected representatives. Those are just a few of the challenges that we are facing right now, and I encourage you to please reach out to the agency, the Information Division, which Myles will provide to you, if you have some direct questions. Anyone that’s interested in reviewing the documents in our enforcement matters, we’ll be happy to explain to you that you would go to the website; there is a tab for enforcement, and any matter that recently was closed will be on our website. Another thing is, is that we have more than ample raw data available for you that also we can assist you in being able to obtain that information. And if you ever have any questions, Myles will step up and explain to you how you can reach out to the press office and contact us. In turn, you are welcome to contact me, and I will also provide that information and also be glad to always point you to the direct source that you need for this information. Thank you. MODERATOR: Okay. And so welcome up to the podium, Myles Martin from the FEC press office. He’ll be giving us a quick run-through and then we’ll have questions after that. So he’ll be giving us a quick run-through of the website, which you can use as a resource as a journalist. We will have them up on the screens for folks here in the room. I understand the screen might be a little small, but it’ll also be on the Zoom link that you’ll get later on our website. So — MR MARTIN: Okay, thank you very much. I am Myles Martin. I am with the FEC’s press office, so I’m one of the career staff at the agency. And just to follow on what Commissioner Broussard spoke about, some of the disclosure requirements that are required of federal candidates. So the Federal Election Commission, we have a kind of a threefold mission. First is administering and enforcing the federal campaign finance laws, and a big part of that is the disclosure that’s required. So when federal candidates and others are seeking to influence federal elections, in many cases they are required to file detailed disclosure reports. These are in a standardized format. We provide the reporting forms, and many of these candidates file electronically. And when those reports are received, what we do is we make them public. So to look at campaign finance reports, no records requests are needed. All you need to do is just go to the FEC’s website. And so what I want to do is just kind of take you through a few demonstrations on how to pull up some of this information. And so what we are at right now is the main FEC website, so that’s fec.gov. This is just the public website that we have here. And I wanted to point out first one of our key features, and a lot of journalists like this feature; it’s the presidential candidate map. It’s just right here on the main website. So if you’re looking at some of the raising and spending that’s going on in the presidential race, you can click on this particular field here and what you will have is, when it loads, you’ll have a map of the U.S. that shows in a CorA platform that what – where money is being raised nationwide in the presidential race. Now, this information is derived directly from the reports that are filed with the commission. Most of the candidates right now file on a monthly schedule. So the two key principal candidates who are going to be the Republican and Democratic nominees are on a monthly schedule. The next major report for them is going to be May 20th. It’s usually the 20th of the month, covering the previous month’s activities. The day after the filing deadline usually is when the map information here, we update that. So what you can do is just say, okay, if you’re looking at a particular state here, you can say, okay, of individuals who have given a California address and provided that and that’s been reported, you can hover over this and get information on the California donors, those who have given a California address. So what this is, as this just says, about $50 million has come across all candidates. This isn’t just narrowing it down to one single candidate. But you can zoom in on different candidates, let’s say, like Biden numbers here about – let’s see, the Biden campaign I believe has reported about I’d say $20 million from California residents. Similarly with Donald Trump, some of these numbers here – about 11 million from California residents. So this is just one way to kind of see it in a visual format, and a lot of journalists tend to like that. If you’re looking at a particular state, if I wanted to say, okay, North Dakota – so if I click on that, what I can do is I can pull up and export the North Dakota itemized data. So what – if any resident who has given a North Dakota address and has been reported by a presidential candidate in 2024 – and this would include all of the candidates who have suspended their campaigns here; you see the list of those who may no longer be in a race – you can export that data and take a look at individuals’ contribution data here. So this is the presidential candidate map. So, again, something that a lot of the journalists really like to use. So if we’re back on the main FEC page, I wanted to talk about how to search. Most of your campaign finance search will be using this tab here, “Campaign Finance Data.” So if you were to click that particular tab here, what it will give you is a dropdown menu. And so if you click “All Data,” what you can do is you can select from this map here or the dropdown menu if you’re looking at a particular state. Coming up very soon there’s a very expensive and key Senate race that’s going to occur in Maryland. The primary will be next week, so there’s been some interest in kind of some of the raising and spending in the state of Maryland. If you’re looking at the Senate race, what I would do is just click on “All Candidates” here, and you will get a list of the candidates in the race and some summary data on how much they’ve raised, how much they’ve spent, and cash on hand. This is derived from the committee’s reports as of the most recently filed reports. They’re saying that they have this much in cash on hand in the bank. So this can be very useful. If you’re looking at a particular candidate, all you need to do is just click on that candidate’s name, and it will give you a summary breakdown of the total raised in a financial summary page here. And then that’s one table, and the next table down will be total spent. And again, these numbers are taken directly from the reports; we don’t do any kind of messing with any of the data, and we don’t do any kind of changing. This is taken directly from the candidates’ reports that they file with the FEC. So if you’re interested in looking at a specific report, this is summary data that’s presented here. If we’re looking at David Trone from Maryland here, if you’re clicking on his campaign committee here, if you want to look at a specific report, all you need to do is go to the committee’s page, and then on the left side of the page click “Filings.” And that will give you a list of all the campaign finance reports that have been filed. So we see right here the most recently filed regular report is the pre-primary. There’s always a report due 12 days out from the election. So if we have a candidate who is up for a primary – the primary I believe in Maryland is going to be on the 14th – there’s a report due 12 days prior to that. So this is the last full report that’s due before the primary election. Just using an example here, as the commissioner had mentioned, an RFAI, which is public, is a letter that’s sent from the FEC. RFAI means “request for additional information.” When the FEC is reviewing the reports, a lot of times we may come across issues in the reports that – where there may be – maybe prohibited contributions, or potentially prohibited contributions that are disclosed on the report, or mathematical discrepancies. There’s all manner of things that can be identified in an RFAI. When those are sent, those are posted right to the committee’s page. So what you can do is you can look and see, and they’re usually very detailed on what are the issues in the report. And it provides the committee with the ability to amend a report, or to clarify the public record. So an RFAI is not an accusation of wrongdoing; it’s just identifying issues in the report that need attention from the committee. And there’s always a response date that’s given by the FEC – please respond by – and it’s 35 days after the notice is sent. So that’s just an example of looking at one particular campaign here. So if we go back to our main campaign finance data page, you can also take a look at larger numbers and, like, who is raising the most or spending the most, these two tabs here. And so you can look at particularly maybe expensive races. What – our default setting here is presidential campaigns, so the list of candidates and who is raising the most here; you can also look at Senate candidates, so who has reported raising the most for Senate candidates. Give that just a second to load. Usually that will load there, but it will give you the list of Senate candidates who have reported raising the most. And so if you want to look at spending, you can look at who is spending the most. And so these graphic presentations here – and so that talks about basically some of the – if you want larger data, kind of more summary data, definitely you can use these types of graphic presentations here. So one thing I also wanted to highlight is when an individual makes a contribution to a candidate and/or a political action committee or a party committee, and it’s reported on an FEC report, there are certain thresholds that the individuals have to meet in order to be itemized on a report, which is where the committee needs to ask for their name, address, occupation, and employer. Once that information is obtained by the committee, they need to report it. So when an individual shows up on a FEC report as so-and-so gave $500 to a political action committee, and it’s on an FEC report, they go into the campaign finance database, and you can look up specific contributions from individuals. So if you go over here to “Campaign Finance Data” – again, look up contributions from specific individuals – you’ll get this search system here. Our default is setting it to the most recent date. So we start at January 1st, 2023, and it’s – and it’s going to end with the end of the election cycle, the 2024 cycle here. So what you get is you get a list of those individuals who have been disclosed on reports, and you can search by their name, by their ZIP code or postal code, the city, or some reporters like to dig into things like, okay, people who are reporting a particular occupation, like engineer or something. You can look up information like that and really compile the data and say, okay, engineers are giving – those who reported engineers as their occupation are giving more to these candidates or this candidate. Also by employer, that sometimes can be useful to look – those who report ABC or XYZ corporation as their employer, you can search for that type of individual or that individual who gave that. You can expand your time period here. So if you want to go back further to the 2022 cycle, that’s an option as well. What you need to do is just select from the dropdown menu 2021 and 2022. It will give you this – you’re trying to search across multiple timeframes here, and you’ll need to change sometimes the receipt date range. So to make this a little bit more manageable, I’ll uncheck 2023 and 2024. And down here I just want to make sure to change my date range to the appropriate date range here. And it may take a few minutes to load, but we’ll get a huge amount of hits here, but certainly you may want to narrow it down by using specific names. Also keep in mind that a lot of people do have the same name. So make sure that if you’re looking at particular people’s names, you’re maybe looking at the person or the people that you’re looking for in a particular state. Sometimes people like to look up celebrities or actors, actresses, or business – noteworthy businesspeople, things like that. So just make sure that you’re identifying the right people when you see that. So the individual contribution search can be very useful. For heavier data users, we also have what are called bulk data files. So if you really need to look deep into all the data that’s been reported, the contributions by individuals file might be useful to you. But these are very, very large files, but just want to make sure that you’re aware that these are out there. But there’s a lot of information that you can glean from the campaign finance reports that are filed, and certainly please reach out to us if you ever have any questions on how to access them. Because a big part of what we do and a lot of what we’ve done with our website in recent years, in particular the last decade, is really try to make the reports and the data accessible to people who are not maybe heavy data users, so at least make a member of the public or a journalist who doesn’t normally look at FEC-related data, at least have them be able to know what they’re looking for and find it as quickly as possible when they’re using the website. So you can contact us at the press office. It’s – the email address is press, P-R-E-S-S, @fec.gov. And I or my colleague will certainly be happy to help if there’s ever anything that you need from FEC data. But we have a huge database with all kinds of things that are available in it, and there are a lot of potential news stories that can be found by digging into the data. And we see the stories all the time, so certainly let us know if there’s any assistance you need in accessing what’s publicly available here. So that kind of – I want to wrap up my section on the kind of demonstrations I’ve done, but I just wanted to now go to any kind of questions that we have. MODERATOR: Yeah. So we’ll take questions. We’ll start here in the room. If you can, be sure to state your name and your outlet and your country. QUESTION: Marcel Calfat with Radio Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Can you explain the rationale for people who are donating to the Republican Party that Donald Trump can use campaign finance donations to pay his legal fees? MS BROUSSARD: Thank you for that question. Myles casually walked away, so I guess I will give the answer. (Laughter.) The theory that I would imagine comes behind that is that if a expenditure is tied to his status as a candidate or an officeholder, then there’s an argument that the fund is related to the campaign, and so you can use the money. In the inverse, if it is not able to show that it would – if you can show that this expenditure for a legal proceeding would exist irrespective of their status as an officeholder, then there’s an argument can be made that it is personal use. But I – I imagine that a counsel could be looking at it, that these are all things that are tied to that individual’s campaign or previous status as an officeholder. So it becomes a question then that that could be a permissible use of campaign funds. But I don’t have any particular facts in front of me, so I don’t want it to make – seem that I’m making a conclusion regarding that. Yes. MODERATOR: Okay? Yes. QUESTION: Thank you. Dmytro Anopchenko, Ukrainian television news correspondent. Ma’am, I’ve got a question about possible Russian influence or Russian interference. When Myles told us that we can see the contributions of Californians or people from North Dakota, definitely we cannot choose Russia. But anyway, there are doubts that Russia will try to put dark money to influence the campaign. So do you think it’s a threat? And if yes, what’s your job to watch for foreign money, and especially Russian money, which may be injected into a campaign? MS BROUSSARD: Thank you for the question. The agency, the commission is very concerned about the influence of foreign money into our federal election system, which is why we have a complete – a statute and regulations say that it is prohibited for a foreign national to be able to make a direct or an indirect contribution. So we have had cases in the past where we have considered that situation and have proceeded with findings of reason to believe and negotiated civil penalties. But I think some of the point that you’re mentioning may be tied – and this is me speaking, solely me – is that we – oftentimes we’re concerned about dark money, what could be contributions that go to nonprofits, because a nonprofit does not have to disclose its donors, as opposed to an authorized committee that would have to disclose. So that is when it’s most important that we do have disclaimers that provide the information as who’s responsible for it. What you’re assessing is that there is a disconnect, I believe, between the disclosure that’s required for a nonprofit as opposed for an authorized committee. So there is that ongoing concern in the community. MODERATOR: Go ahead. QUESTION: Do you believe it’s possible that, like, hundreds or thousands of Jane Doe or John Doe will make a small contributions, but you will not be able or campaign will not be able to identify the source of the money? MS BROUSSARD: Well, we’re speaking speculative, so if we can speculate, then it could be a possibility. But committees do have a responsibility when they receive that donation – that contribution, excuse me – it is required to give the name, address. And if there is a belief or a subsequent belief that the money is from a foreign national not able to make a contribution, the committee has an ongoing responsibility to be able to develop that. MODERATOR: Okay. Yes. QUESTION: When they fill their income tax form and donate automatically, do you know what proportion of that money in the spending or – do you know what proportion, how important that sum is in a election cycle usually? MS BROUSSARD: Well, that would be the money that goes to public funding when a candidate accepts public funding. We have not – the last major candidate that accepted public funding was John McCain. And after Senator McCain, we no longer – it seemed to be – an observation is that candidates moved away from that because then we had the 2010 decision of Citizens United that allowed corporations to make independent expenditures. That created an additional avenue for communications to be developed that I think in some way has leaned away from individuals pursuing that public funding. We do have cases where we’ve had individuals for third – third parties or minor parties that have availed themselves of the public funding, but I would have to dig in to give you the exact numbers that were used. That’s something that I’m sure Myles could help locate the information. It does not become a major consideration that I look at in the work that I see on a daily basis. QUESTION: Do you foresee that one day there would only be public funding in an American election? MS BROUSSARD: Again – so Shana speaking as Shana, as opposed to – I don’t represent the agency on that. Do I think that it could become a potential solution for how to promote equity in the campaign process? Yes. And there have been several, I think, very excellent arguments that have been made how we can create a system that’s not disparate based upon making equality in the funding. But I think a fair argument becomes that if you’re going to do something like that, you’re implicating the core free speech rights of the individual that might have means. So you do have to balance that, and the court has actually said we can’t punish the person for being wealthy for wanting to use their money in their campaign. So I think if you were to do that, you have to be prepared that you are potentially implicating some First Amendment rights of an individual. But as a personal – and only speaking personal, do I think that this would be a great opportunity for us to create a more equitable system? Yes. But I do respect that there are First Amendment rights that we have to make sure that we’re considering for all individuals in the country. MODERATOR: Okay. And — QUESTION: The richer you — MS BROUSSARD: I’m sorry? QUESTION: The richer you are, the louder your megaphone is. MS BROUSSARD: That is an argument that some may make. QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. MODERATOR: Okay. A reminder to folks joining us on Zoom: If you have a question, please click the “raise hand” icon so we know to call on you. We do have a couple of submitted questions real quickly. I’ll see if we can answer those. “What power does the FEC have over election irregularities at state or lower-level elections?” MS BROUSSARD: So the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission is for federal elections. However, that jurisdiction can extend in a small instance when we’re dealing with foreign nationals, because the statute provides that a foreign national cannot make a contribution or donation in a federal, state, or local election. So there is a history of the commission having considered cases where donations have been made in local elections that the commission did consider the matter, made a reason to believe determination, and then proceeded with that. So that is the instance when you’re looking at something that might be beyond the normal federal election level. MODERATOR: And our other submitted question was: “How has the proliferation of cryptocurrency, AI, and other technologies affected campaign finance and regulation?” MS BROUSSARD: What a multiple question. (Laughter.) So the first, you said crypto – we haven’t – I – and only speaking for myself and having been at the agency for approximately 16, 17 years, we’ve had very limited instances to have to opine regarding crypto. It is a consideration that we have a few AOs that we talk about how you can define it as a contribution or how you would find it – define it as a reporting metric. But I haven’t had a lot of experience dealing with that. The next you mentioned was, I believe, AI? MODERATOR: AI. MS BROUSSARD: And so AI has become – I’m going to say that this might be the only prescient meeting that you have that says it – the sexy topic for the 2022 or ’24 – what year are we in, goodness – (laughter) – general election. There is a rampant concern in this community that AI can have a detrimental impact. And we have seen in various instances where in some of the primary elections, there have been AI communications that have been disseminated. We did see in a primary that there was an audio AI. It is something that, from the perspective of the agency, there is a pending rulemaking before us, so I’m going to dance very carefully about what I can say in regards to that. But I’m also very heartened that there have been some legislation proposed just yesterday or so by the Senate that has a real intention of being able to put disclaimers on this and also how you would address it in an enforcement arena if in fact there is AI used in a campaign without disclosing and it falsely says something – misrepresents. Was there a third component? MODERATOR: Just tech development in general. MS BROUSSARD: (Laughter.) Tech developments in general, I want to direct everybody to internet disclaimer provisions that I’ve mentioned. It took 11 years for the commission to finally be able to get to a point where we had agreement – and I am proud to say that I worked along with Commissioner Dickerson, Allen Dickerson, on this point – where we were able to draft a public communication rule that says that internet public communications paid for – because we don’t want to take away the right of the – you and I sitting in our house posting on our website – the individuals. But if you are paying for something to be on the internet, it must include a disclaimer. Now, this is something that some believe was automatically always required, but it wasn’t in the books. It is now there that if you are paying to put a communication on the internet and it satisfies those definitions of a public communication, it solicits, it expressly advocates, you would be required to include a disclaimer. What’s unique about the law that I’m mentioning is that we take in consideration that there is a possibility that you might have to do an adapted disclaimer, because we’re looking at this on our phones, it’s not that big, but we still want the responsibility to know who’s behind a communication. So there has been that expansion that the agency has done to take in consideration the technological advances. MODERATOR: Okay. And seeing no other questions, we’ll go ahead and end the Q&A session here. I’ll turn it over to you to offer any last remarks you might have, Commissioner. MS BROUSSARD: Sure. I just want to say thank you to the audience today. I want to say thank you to those in the public. It’s going to be a roller coaster. I say everybody put your seatbelt on and be prepared for your reporting. The agency is always ready to be there to assist you in whatever you can. One point that I do want to mention that Myles showed you – and they are always ready to assist you – but I did want to do this but I didn’t want to interrupt you, Myles. When he was mentioning the RFAIs, that request for additional information, one point to be aware of is that answer will also be published on our website. So come back in 30 days to see what they say, if there’s something there. We do our best at the FEC to make sure that we in turn promote transparency in the campaign finance process, and if there’s anything that we can do to help facilitate that, please let us know. Thank you. MODERATOR: All right. Thank you, Commissioner Broussard and Myles. That ends today’s briefing. Thank you all to the journalists who have joined us today online and in person. Thank you. MS BROUSSARD: Thank you.