Enforcement. It is unfortunate we dont have a quorum. It is inexcusable, in my view. We had two commissioners who resigned, one two years ago, another almost two years ago. Those seats were never filled. Host why . Chair weintraub i dont know. That is something i have no control over. The nominations have to be made by the president and confirmed by the senate. I think it is inexcusable that those nominations were not made. It is easy to get over the long vacancies. We should have never been in this situation we found ourselves in. We are down to a quorum of four. Another commissioner decided to resign. That left us with only three. It takes four commissioners to initiate investigations, to authorize penalties and approve conciliation agreements. Which is usually the way we conclude them. However, people should know before we lost the quorum, we authorized a number of investigations. We are at a high point in a decade in the number of investigations we have ongoing. As soon as we get commissioners back in, we will be able to finalize some of those investigations and take up the complaints filed. Host the authority of the fec is what . Chair weintraub money in politics. We were set up to follow the money. Every candidate for federal office, Political Party committee, super pac, they have to register with the fec and file regular reports. Disclosing who is funding them and what they are doing with the money. Any donor of 200 or more gets their name disclosed on public reports. Anybody can look them up on fec. Gov and find out who is supporting your favorite candidates. Maggie just a followup you mentioned you had a high point in the number of investigations. Can you talk about what the fec can do with those investigations . You could refer something to the Justice Department, right . Chair weintraub staff is continuing to investigate. We authorized those investigations. And fortunately, work gets done at the fec by people who are not commissioners. We have a terrific and dedicated staff and they are coming to work and doing their jobs every day. One of those divisions is our enforcement division. We more than doubled the number of investigations during this calendar year. I set a very aggressive agenda for enforcement. We were backlogged on our enforcement docket. There were too many cases waiting on decisions by commissioners. I worked the commission pretty hard during the seven months out of the year. Before we lost the quorum, we were working very hard. We made a lot of progress on the backlog. Unfortunately, we have lost the ground we made up since we have been without a quorum since the beginning of september. The staff continues to work on those investigations. They will be writing reports and formulating recommendations, so that as soon as we get four commissioners or more, we could have six, the commission will be able to make decisions on those investigations. Maggie i wanted to step back before the fec had its quorum. Even then there was partisanship at the commission. If you were given all the power to fix the fec, what would you do to make it a functioning agency . What do you think needs to happen in order to make it a commission that works . Chair weintraub the first thing we need is to have commissioners dedicated to enforcing the law. That would help if we had a majority of commissioners with the mission of the agency and wanted to see it accomplished, then we could really get things done. As it is, forever in some sense, but particularly in the last few years, there has been an ideological divide on the commission, with half of the commission thinking the law should not be strenuously enforced because it intrudes on First Amendment rights, and the other half thinking it is our obligation to enforce to prevent corruption, and we have to make sure there is accountability when people violate the law. The interesting thing about this divide is it is not partisan in the traditional sense. It is true democrats are on the proenforcement side and republicans are on the other side, but it doesnt matter who we are investigating. We had a big case that just concluded. It concluded before we lost the quorum that involved a scheme between a super pac and Hillary Clinton campaign. The democrats voted to enforce the law, to investigate, and the republicans blocked the investigation. Because it is an ideological divide over whether the law should be enforced at all, and it is not one side trying to protect their guy. Maggie i was thinking structural changes to the agency. Does it take changes to Campaign Finance law . So people can have more agreement on how the Campaign Finance system works . Thinking in terms of the overall system as opposed to the personalities of individual commissioners, what would you do . Chair weintraub various changes have been proposed that would strengthen the law. There are also changes to the agency, which i think you are getting at. The most controversial one is the number of commissioners. It has been proposed that the problem is we have an evenly divided commission, and that is why we cant get four votes to do anything, because you have three people on one side and three on the other. There are a number of what ought to be less controversial cases. That would help the agency work better. When staff makes a recommendation to do an investigation, if the presumption is we would have gone forward with the investigation unless four commissioners blocked it, then at least we could gather more facts and make a more informed decision. One of the ways the agency has been obstructed in the last decade or more is we havent been able to get four votes to start an investigation. We get an allegation, and my colleagues on the other side have raised the threshold for starting an investigation. They want to see proof, they want to see evidence in front of them that the law was violated before they start the investigation. We are the enforcement agency. We have subpoena power. We are the ones who are supposed to conduct the investigation. Anyone in the country can file a complaint. You cant expect people in the public to have the resources to do the investigation before they file the complaint. That is our job. Instead of requiring four votes to approve an investigation, it would require four votes to stop an investigation, at least we can get the facts before the commissioners when they make the final determination whether someone violated the law. That in and of itself would be a huge improvement for the way it functions. Michelle you are clearly a very outspoken member of the fec. Not everyone agrees with you. As you have mentioned. There is quite an ideological divide. Especially during this time of lack of quorum, you have used your position as chairwoman to bring publicity to certain issues that you want to draw attention to, called out specific issues you hope to raise in the public attention because there are not any meetings right now. You are quite voiceless at the actual agency. There are critics who say you are using your platform improperly. There is an Inspector General complaint filed with the Inspector General, basically saying you are improperly using your position in a political manner. What do you say to the critics who allege you are compromising your agencys ability to be neutral arbiters of campaignfinance law . Chair weintraub i have several responses to that. The i. G. Complaint is a duplicate of an earlier complaint that our i. G. Looked at and dismissed, that i havent done anything wrong. It is unusual to file a second i. G. Complaint on the same set of facts. Secondly, one of the important functions of the agency is to provide the public with information about what the law is. We are hamstrung in doing that in the normal ways we would do it. I feel an obligation to get information out to the public to make sure everyone is clear where the lines are. I have put out statements that summarize the law, by going on television programs. Any tool i have to get the message out is one i am prepared to use. We dont want people to be caught by surprise by what the law is. I want them to follow the law. That is a much better plan for the agency than having us come back two years later and trying to see if someone deserves a penalty for violating the law. Wouldnt it be better to make sure everyone knows upfront where the lines are so that they can comply with the law and everyone is playing by the same set of rules . Finally, i would like to add, to those who argue this is political or partisan, you can look at my voting record. I have voted to enforce the law against the highestranking officials of both parties over the years. I just gave you the example of a case where i voted to enforce the law against Hillary Clinton, against barack obama, against the current president , donald trump, the last republican president , george w. Bush i dont care who violated the law, it is my job and my obligation to ensure everyone is complying with the law and to enforce it fairly, regardless of rank and party. Michelle speaking of the issues the public cares about, we had indictments relating to influence operations by foreign actors or foreign entities who are trying to gain access to the u. S. Political system. We realized we are still dealing with issues coming from the 2016 elections when it comes to foreign attempts. Is the fec equipped to handle some of these concerns . What role does the fec have in making sure you can enforce the laws that prohibit foreign influence on u. S. Elections, especially now that we are entering the 2020 elections . Chair weintraub we have a number of investigations that are ongoing. I cant go into the details. When the commission discusses foreign intervention, we have found a surprising degree of unanimity on those issues. It is generally accepted we dont want foreigners intervening in our elections. We are not alone. This is an international problem. Countries around the world are grappling with this same issue, how do you prevent outsiders from trying to intervene in your elections . The Justice Department has an important role, because these are serious issues. I think the laws need to be strengthened. I would like to see better and stronger sanctions imposed, and for us as a government to make it clear across the government that every Single Person is on the same page on this issue and that strong sanctions will be applied to anyone who tries to muck around in our elections. It is hard to know what tricks someone will pull the next go around. The Intelligence Community has confirmed this, that foreign governments will try to interfere in the 2020 election. I think it behooves us and congress to adopt strong measures to warn everybody off. This is the United States of america. It is our democracy, and we will not tolerate anyone else trying to intervene. Maggie foreign election interference is such a huge issue right now. I think it is sprawling. What do you see the fec doing to curb this problem . Chair weintraub we have a number of investigations ongoing now. If we were to come out with strong outcomes on those investigations we had a case earlier involving a domestic subsidiary of a Foreign Company that made over a 1 billion contribution to a super pac. The commission declared that is against the law, which it clearly is. We had one of the highest penalties we had in a decade of almost 1 million in that case. There have been some alarming items of dissension on that. We had a couple of complaints that i thought we should have investigated, one involving whether russian money was funneled through the nra. We could not get a consensus to investigate. I think that is unfortunate. For the most part, the fec commissioners had been on the same page on this. Lawyers are at work as we speak, investigating some of those cases. The bigger cases will be handled by the Justice Department. That is appropriate, because they can throw people in jail. We dont have that authority. Host you gave an extension to Michael Bloomberg in filing his Financial Disclosure forms. Why . Chair weintraub i was not personally involved in that decision. Our lawyers handled that in accordance with the regulations on providing extensions. I wasnt personally involved. I wasnt consulted before the extension was given. Host so that is unusual to give an extension . Chair weintraub no, that is not unusual. Michelle i want to pivot to something wonky, microtargeting. Recently you wrote in the Washington Post about eliminating microtargeting, the use of it in political ads, saying it may be undermining the political character of the United States. Googles prohibition on microtargeting is about to go into effect for u. S. Advertisers. I am curious, why do you propose eliminating Something Like this . Why is it better to have advertisers run ads targeted to a broader audience rather than specifically reach people who are the most engaged or not engaged before . Doesnt eliminating microtargeting mean someone who has the most resources can have the broadest megaphone, like a president ial candidate who is a multi billionaire like Michael Bloomberg who is flooding the airwaves with ads reaching tons of people . Chair weintraub the benefit of social media ads is they are not extensive to begin with. Even if you expand the number who will see it, it adds up as you do a lot, but individual ads are not expensive. The problem with microtargeting we had different responses from Different Social Media platforms. Twitter said they will ban all political advertising. That may be a step too far. We want people to reach their audience. We want candidates for office to have a way of reaching people, a lowcost way of reaching them. The problem with microtargeting is the standard response on First Amendment jurisprudence to someone running an ad with inaccuracies, ok, if you disagree, you can counter them by putting out your information. When it is microtargeted, nobody sees it, so there is no room for an opponent to say that ad is inaccurate. It made charges that were untrue. Or other folks can get into the mix and say there is information that has been debunked. You are trafficking in conspiracy theories. What we dont want is for individuals to be targeted based on the vast amount of data these social Media Companies collect for their susceptibilities to certain arguments that may not be true, and there is no opportunity on the other side to counter the speech. That is why having more people exposed to the same information will provide a more honest debate and find people with the opportunity to respond to the arguments being made. Maggie we have seen a couple people be indicted for raising huge amount of money for pacs that look like charities. We found scam pacs for trumps reelection have raised 44 million. These issues are becoming bigger, but there seems to be a lot of apathy in washington about fixing it. When you ask people on the right, there are free speech concerns when it comes to curbing the behavior of super pacs to raise money. What, to you, seems like a reasonable route to do something to fix scam pacs, or will this be a Justice Department issue . Chair weintraub i am not apathetic about this. This is something i have been concerned about for a long time because people are getting ripped off. Donors are trying to exercise their First Amendment rights and they are being misled. They are being deceived. They are being ripped off. You think it is unsophisticated folks who are the most likely targets, and sometimes they are, but daniel craig was taken in by a scam pac. Who is more sophisticated than james bond . This is a real problem. There are people preying on peoples vulnerabilities. They send out these letters and say if you want to protect your way of life, you have to support this candidate. Somewhere in the fine print there will be something that says we are not affiliated with that candidate, but people dont see that. One thing we can do is require much broader disclaimer information in plain english so that it is information that says clearly and unmistakably on the solicitation, this money is not going to that candidate. We have had candidates who filed complaints about this kind of scam pac activity. It is ripping them off too. People are trying to support them and maybe only have 25 they can afford to spend, and it goes into the pocket of somebody who set up this organization and money is funneled into overhead expenses and ends up in the pocket of the person who organized it in the first place. We need stronger fraud protection. The fec recommended congress strengthen the laws against fraud in campaigning. I dont know how much protection i want to give to the First Amendment right of somebody to deceive and steal money from people. I suppose that is speech when you say give me money. But just as we have deceptive advertising practices, there should be prohibitions against defrauding people of their political money. Host a quick question . Maggie in 2020, a decade will have passed since Citizens United. What is the biggest impact from a regulatory standpoint . Chair weintraub it is interesting. People were afraid corporations would be spending a lot of money as a result of that decision, but that is not the primary result. The biggest result has been the empowerment of a class of megadonors spending millions of dollars to influence who gets elected. In the 2016 election, 126 individuals gave over 1 million. 13 gave over 10 million. One family gave 122 million to various political committees. That is only the money we know about. We are not talking about the dark money groups. That has a real impact, not only on who gets elected, but people are afraid to support policies that anger these big donors, knowing they can spend unlimited amounts of money to get somebody that will tow their line more easily. For all of us who believe every person deserves an equal voice in our country, the rise of these megadonors has not been a Good Development for democracy. Host do you think the president views the fec as a priority . Chair weintraub you will have to ask the president. He made a nomination a long time ago. That person has not gotten so much as a hearing in the senate. The senate has proven they are motivated to confirm people when they are motivated to do so. I wish we could have our quorum restored and get back to work. Maggie we heard about chatter. These are often bipartisan conversations on capitol hill about nominating new commissioners. Do you hear about that these days . Chair weintraub i hear a lot of things, but the people in position to affect it is the senate and president. I wish that they would get us a new commissioner so we can do our job. Host Ellen Weintraub, chair of the fec, the federal election commission. We appreciate you being here on newsmakers. We continue our conversation with Maggie Severns and michelle ye hee lee. This is an agency designed to enforce money in politics, but doesnt have the tools to do so. Michelle it was jarring to hear the chairwoman of the fec acknowledge the agency has lacked investigative powers as we ramp up for the president ial election. This will be the most expensive election ever. President ial, senate, house, even local and state, yet, even though the role of money in politics is going to be so great this year, she cant investigate. Now the backlog is going to get greater. That is a bad sign for the 2020 election. Host what do you view as the biggest challenge . Maggie seeing the way Ellen Weintraub talks about her work her job is to chair this commission, but often her answers are about Things Congress and the Justice Department can do. When we talk about disinformation or foreign interference, this huge threat everyone talks about the threat of russia or china in this election. Her answers none of them had to do with what the fec can do, because there is no quorum, and even if there was a quorum, the fec ground to a halt before then. She spends so much of her time talking to the press or thinking of work around solutions, things to ask congress for, to just be a public figure. Host she did not seem too concerned about the i. G. Report. Michelle as you mentioned during the interview, the fec was not always known for its efficiency. She seems like she has embraced the role of a public watchdog and going that path. She sees her agency is halted in so many ways. You see these Digital Tools developing around political advertising, methods like scam pacs which solicit donations from people that do not know it is a scam. Yet the agency supposed to enforce these regulations is not caught up to the latest tools and cannot look into those tools in political advertising. Host jimmy carter and gerald ford took federal matching dollars. Now we have federal billionaires in the race. As someone who covers money in politics, it seems like those days are gone. Maggie some candidatesproposals of how to fix campaignfinance include bringing back a Public Financing system. That was an astute point from Ellen Weintraub, that the biggest impact from Citizens United is not the money in the campaignfinance system, it is the empowerment of the people funding the system. It is a completely different world. Right now, a lot of democrats running for president would like to bring back some kind of system where Congress Puts money into campaign coffers, something to change that and overhaul the system. There is little appetite for it in washington. Michelle technology and the behavior of donors are evolving so much quicker than agency is equipped to handle. Now they dont even have enough people to move forward. Host we will follow your work at politico and the Washington Post. Thanks for being on newsmakers. This holiday week, both tv is on cspan2 every day with primetime features each night. Starting monday at 8 30 p. M. Eastern with nikki haley and her book with all due respect. And tuesday, neil gorsuch and his book a republic if you can keep it. On wednesday, indepth with and her latest book on fire. Thursday, Nancy Isenberg and andrew discuss president s in their book the problem of democracy. On friday, roman pharaoh and his book catch and kill. Watch every weekend on cspan2. Max, senator Bernie Sanders holds a Campaign Rally in venice, california. He is one of several candidates making his way through Southern California following thursdays president ial debate. Joining him is alec is representative alexandere. Cortez cornell west made introductory remarks. Let the word go forth here and now. We are here to ensure that our dear