Board and Ethics Commission open lengthy joint hearing on campaign and conflict-of-interest reforms

A joint hearing of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the city’s Ethics Commission on April 3 examined proposed amendments to the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, including new disclosure rules for large donors, restrictions on certain contributions from parties with pending land-use matters, and new reporting obligations for donations made at the request of public officials.

The Ethics Commission’s chair, Chair Chiu, opened the meeting saying the commission sought to “shine the light on conduct that can create the risk of pay-to-play” and asked the board and commission to work collaboratively to refine the package. The board’s sponsor, Supervisor Peskin, told the joint panel the goal was to make comprehensive reforms to reduce the influence of anonymous and large outside spending in local elections.

The hearing followed a structure agreed by the two bodies: commissioners presented amendments, then the board offered input, and both took public comment. The Ethics Commission and board staff warned that some proposed changes could require additional legal review and additional time to implement, especially provisions that would need new forms or an online filing system.

Public testimony stretched for more than an hour and included nonprofit leaders, social-service agencies, government transparency advocates and private citizens. Several nonprofit representatives urged the bodies not to create burdensome new reporting obligations for small donors or to chill ordinary charitable fundraising. Representatives of human-services and housing nonprofits said they supported limits on undisclosed influence but warned a low reporting threshold could deter routine fundraising. Members of the campaign‑reform and good-government community urged stronger disclosure for so‑called “major donors” to noncandidate committees that spend heavily on independent expenditures.

At the end of the meeting the Ethics Commission voted to approve an amended version of the ordinance. Commissioners adopted three core modifications that were subsequently forwarded to the board: a bifurcated operative date (to allow time for forms and systems to be built), a clarification of contribution‑disclosure requirements, and a revised definition of “interested party.” Commissioners also asked staff to reformat the final text to reflect a mix of amendments that had been proposed by commissioners and supervisors during the meeting.

Chair Chiu said the commission would reconvene to finalize the ordinance at a soon-to-be-scheduled special meeting ahead of the commission’s regular April agenda; commissioners and several supervisors asked staff to try to find an earlier date so the commission and the board could complete action promptly. The board referred the corresponding ordinance file to committee for continued review while the commission prepares final text.

What the bodies did not finish: several of the more controversial proposals — including a comprehensive “major-donor” disclosure provision requiring short-window reporting of investment holdings tied to large independent-expenditure donations — were removed from the text for further work and will be considered again after the commission finalizes a single version of the ordinance.

The joint hearing signaled a rare, high‑profile push by the city to tighten local controls on campaign influence and donor transparency. Both supervisors and commissioners emphasized the need to balance enforceable transparency with not creating undue compliance burdens that would deter legitimate charitable activity.

The Ethics Commission announced it will continue its meeting in Room 263 to receive additional public comment before formal adjournment. The board left the item in committee while the commission completes its next steps.