As for Commissioner Ravel's departing report:
To my knowledge, Commissioner Ravel first published her report on the
AltFEC twitter account on Sunday at Noon, so I have had very little time
to study her data. However, what I have seen in Commissioner Ravel’s
data jumps off the page as misleading and sophistic in several
areas. The data compiled in Commissioner Ravel's report are
misleading and do not accurately reflect the state of enforcement
decisions at the FEC. I assume that Commissioner Ravel has
manipulated her statistics purposely in order to advance her
philosophical narrative that First Amendment rights should be severely
restricted.
Here are just a few shortcomings in Commissioner Ravel's data.
1. Commissioner Ravel's report purports to compile all 3 to 3
"substantive votes" in "enforcement matters closed" during 2016. The
data point she cites, 37.5%, is contrived to exaggerate the number of
cases decided by a vote of 3 to 3. Here's how:
-- Ravel does not count any votes to find reason to believe and proceed
with an investigation. By excluding these votes in 2016, and counting
only "matters closed" or dismissed, she has magnified the percentage of
3 to 3 votes in enforcement cases overall.
-- Ravel counts all 3 to 3 votes, even if there were a number of 3 to 3
votes on discrete issues in a single enforcement matter that ended in a
majority position to compromise. In one matter, the Commission voted
6 to 0 to accept 6 general counsel recommendations to close a file. That's
one vote to dismiss one matter. In another matter, the Commission cast
three 3 to 3 votes on discrete issues, breaking up the general counsel's
recommendations into several discrete motions and votes, and ultimately
voted 6 to 0 to move forward on one issue. Ravel counts that case as
three 3 to 3 votes and one 6 to 0 votes. In some cases, the Commission
has voted 6 to 0 to dismiss a case, but then cast a 3 to 3 on approving a

 factual and legal analysis. By counting all of these "substantive" 3 to 3
votes, she has exaggerated actual enforcement
disagreement. Furthermore, counting all 3-3 votes on the way to a final
resolution that results in a majority vote discounts compromise.
By way of comparison, here are my figures for 2016:
-- The Commission closed 164 enforcement cases in 2016 (matters in
office of general counsel and alternative dispute resolution).
-- Of the 164 cases closed, the final vote to dismiss the matter was 3 to 3
in only 16 cases, or 9.7%. Note that I do not count every discrete vote
along the way to a final dismissal. I just count the ultimate 3 to 3
vote: proceed with enforcement or dismiss.
-- Of the 16 cases dismissed by a vote of 3 to 3, in 7 of those cases, the
general counsel recommended dismissal, three Republican
Commissioners voted in agreement with the general counsel, and three
Democratic Commissioners voted to proceed with enforcement. This is
one check against Commissioner Ravel's narrative that all 3 to 3 votes
are evidence of Republican lawlessness.
-- Of the 16 cases dismissed by a vote of 3 to 3, in 9 of those cases the
general counsel recommended enforcement, three Republicans voted to
dismiss, and three Democrats voted in favor of the general counsel's
recommendation to enforce. That's just 5.5% of the entire 164 cases
closed in 2016.
-- My percentage statistic of 9.7% drops to about 8.8% when I include in
the total case count the MURs where the the Commission voted by
majority vote to find reason to believe and open an enforcement
case. Commissioner Ravel chose to exclude from her statistics the cases
where the Commission voted to move forward with
enforcement. According to data provided by FEC staff, the Commission
voted to find reason to believe a violation occurred and to proceed with

 enforcement in 39 cases involving 59 respondents. (There are a few
machinations one must account for to control for double counting of
enforcement cases opened with a RTB finding and closed in the same
calendar year to derive the 8.8% figure. I can explain this detail if you
are interested.)
2. Commissioner Ravel also cites civil penalties collected as her
measure of effective regulation. I disagree with the premise that we
should judge the effectiveness of the FEC by how much it punishes
citizens, in monetary terms, for exercising First Amendment rights.
-- Ravel compares total civil penalties in 2016 to total civil penalties in
2006. That is a highly selective 11-year comparison. Why choose an 11year comparison? Ravel apparently chose 2006 as her base year because
in that year the Commission received the highest civil penalties in the
history of the Commission -- all due to one $3.8 million civil penalty
paid by Freddie Mac that year. It was the highest penalty ever paid to
the FEC. No other year has come close to that year. So she selected the
highest base year she could find to exaggerate her philosophical
narrative.
-- Civil penalties collected in 2016 increased over civil penalties
collected in 2015 and 2014. Civil penalties in 2016 were 32% higher
than in 2014. This runs counter Ravel's narrative.
-- Finally, Ravel makes a comparison with 2006 without acknowledging
critical context -- that the entire field of First Amendment regulation has
been deregulated by the courts, the Commission, Congress, and
presidential campaigns opting out of public funding since 2006. Why
would civil penalties go up during a decade of increasing
deregulation? To wit:
---- Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Right to Life deregulated
corporate and labor union electioneering communications in 2007

 ---- Supreme Court decision in Davis, which struck the millionaire
amendment in 2008 (which had generated hundreds of thousands of
dollars in civil penalties)
---- Supreme Court decision in Citizens United deregulated corporate,
labor union and non-profit corporation independent expenditures in 2010
---- Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon deregulated aggregate
contribution limits in 2014
---- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision in
SpeechNow recognized free speech rights of Super PACs in 2010
---- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision in Van
Hollen deregulated donor disclosure for electioneering communications
in 2015
---- FEC deregulated all free political speech on the Internet in the
Internet Freedom Rulemaking in 2006
---- FEC deregulated Super PACs in the Commonsense 10 Advisory
Opinion in 2010
---- FEC deregulated Super PACs further in Senate Majority PAC
Advisory Opinion in 2015
---- Congress eliminated public funding for Conventions in 2014 (this
deregulated national conventions and eliminated audits and fines for
conventions)
---- FEC deregulated national conventions further in the RNC / DNC
Advisory Opinion on Convention funding in 2014
---- Congress established new accounts for national parties in 2015
---- Only 2 or 3 presidential candidates accepted federal funds in
2015/16 (so there will be fewer audits of presidential campaigns and
fewer enforcement actions and fines arising from presidential campaigns
than at any time in FEC history)
There are others. The upshot is that nearly half of what the FEC
regulated and punished in the mid-2000s at the height of BCRA has
been deregulated. Deregulation explains lower civil penalties, not
Commissioner Ravel's tired meme of "dysfunction" within the
Commission.

 3. Finally, a few observations about the specific subjects and cases
discussed in Commissioner Ravel's report:
First, in the cases mentioned, the Republicans have explained our
reasons for voting as we did in detailed written statements open for
public and judicial review. They are available for public reading on the
FEC's website.
Second, noticeably absent from Commissioner Ravel's list of important
issues are her efforts to regulate and punish free speech on the Internet
and in the press.
Commissioner Ravel voted at least a half dozen times to punish or
otherwise regulate YouTube videos, tweets, and websites. She should
have included her efforts to regulate free postings on the Internet in her
departure report because Internet regulation is an important part of her
legacy at the FEC.
Commissioner Ravel voted to punish Fox News for making a newsroom
editorial decision to include additional candidates on its debate
stage. Commissioner Ravel should have included her efforts to regulate
and punish American newsrooms in her departure report, because that
will remain part of her lasting legacy.
Of the 16 cases dismissed by a vote of 3 to 3, free press rights were
under attack in the Fox News debate case and the Gilbert documentary
film case, while free speech on the Internet was at issue in the Frankel
case. That's three of the 16 cases decided by a vote of 3 to 3.
Some important historical perspective on Commissioner Ravel's legacy
with respect to free press and Internet rights can be read here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erikwemple/wp/2016/06/30/the-fec-has-no-business-judging-fox-newss-

 debate/?utm_term=.5649eddbd22d
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/30/fec-democrats-tried-topunish-fox-news-over-debate-changes-files-show.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/19/fec-opening-door-tointernet-regulation-again.html
Third, Commissioner Ravel’s report misrepresents the substance or
background of several cases featured as poster cases. Here are some
examples:
-- The only foreign national case Ravel features is the Mindgeek case
(MUR 6678). Mindgeek dealt not with an election for public office, but
a California ballot measure. Therefore, Republicans voted to dismiss for
lack of FEC jurisdiction, but we noted that California law prohibited
foreign nationals from contributing to ballot measure
campaigns. Ironically, the Mindgeek case came to the FEC due to
Commissioner Ravel’s inaction as chair of the California Fair Political
Practices Commission. A complaint was filed with the FPPC in 2012
alleging that a foreign national had spent money in a local ballot
measure campaign. FPPC Chair Ravel did not enforce California’s
prohibition against the foreign national and the complaint was
dismissed. Ravel joined the FEC and a year later started to demagogue
the Mindgeek case as an example of FEC Republican
recalcitrance. After the case was dismissed at the FEC, the California
FPPC reconsidered the case and punished the foreign national.
-- Ravel cites the CHGO case (MUR 6391/6471). Ravel states that the
Republicans refused to find a violation. Not true. First, it’s
misleading. Republicans had voted to find reason to believe and open
and investigation. Second, after the investigation, Republican
Commissioners were ready to find substantial reporting violations at one
stage of the proceeding. But, Democrats insisted on further
investigation to prove a broader legal theory of “political committee”

 status. That investigation ensued, but as the U.S. District Court ruled
today (Feb. 22, 2017), the case was properly dismissed because the
statute of limitations ran as to the clear violations the Republicans were
prepared to enforce a year earlier, and the Commission was justified in
declining to initiate prosecution of a defunct organization.
Sincerely,
Lee Goodman
Commissioner