Supervisors split over response to U.S. Supreme Court ruling; public-financing fix fails 6-5

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors debated revisions to the city's public financing rules for nearly three hours before voting 6-5 on an ordinance aimed at bringing the law into compliance with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Supporters said the immediate change was necessary to avoid litigation; opponents argued that a narrower, more carefully vetted approach would better protect the intent of public financing. Supervisor Malia Cohen summarized the legal issue for the public: "The Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, issued a ruling that has brought our public finance laws out of compliance," she said during the meeting.

The ordinance before the board would have amended the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (section 1.144) to remove a provision (commonly described at the hearing as a "trigger") that linked public matching funds to outside expenditures. Proponents including Supervisors Mark Farrell and David Chiu argued removing the trigger was necessary because the Supreme Court's decision made that linkage constitutionally vulnerable. Opponents, including Supervisors Jane Kim and David Campos, said the city should also consider policy changes -- for instance raising matching caps and eligibility thresholds -- and send proposals to the Ethics Commission for a public vetting process.

Legal counsel to the board, Mark Moradomi, told supervisors the issue was not simply numerical: "The concern ' I have in looking at the Supreme Court decision is the connection between outside expenditures and the public financing. ... As long as you eliminate the connection, you can make whatever other changes you wish to make in the numbers." Several supervisors sought advice about whether raising caps alone would cure the legal risk; counsel repeatedly said the constitutional problem was the link to outside spending and the city would still have to show a compelling interest if it retained that connection.

After debate, the roll call on the ordinance read: Cohen (aye), Ellsberg (aye), Farrell (aye), Kim (no), Mar (no), Mercarimi (no), Wiener (aye), Avalos (no), Campos (no), President Chu (aye). With 6 ayes and 5 noes the measure failed; board rules required eight votes for the change to pass. President David Chiu told the public the defeat was procedural only, and noted Supervisor Jane Kim said she would introduce separate legislation that "does encompass many aspects" of the earlier amendment and that the Ethics Commission would review it in the coming weeks.

Why it matters: San Francisco's public financing system has been promoted as a mechanism to expand the range of candidates who can run for office. The board's debate centered on a legal obligation to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling while preserving the program's purpose. Several supervisors and the mayor's office indicated further work before the Ethics Commission would follow, with one sponsor describing the next steps as an effort to "harmonize the mayor's program with the Board of Supervisors program" and bring the community into public hearings.

What the vote did and didn't do: The failed ordinance did not repeal or replace the public-financing program; it failed to obtain the votes needed to enact the proposed change immediately. Multiple supervisors said they supported removing the now-vulnerable linkage identified by the Supreme Court but disagreed on timing and whether to bundle other changes (such as raising funding caps for supervisorial races). Supervisor Kim said her forthcoming ordinance will remove the trigger and "couple it with other amendments that would continue to address the intent, the original intent of public financing," and that the Ethics Commission will hold hearings.

Outlook: Supervisors signaled continued interest in amending the program, but the board remains divided about whether to pursue a rapid compliance action or a broader package of changes. Legal counsel and the Ethics Commission will be involved in drafting and vetting the alternatives. Several supervisors urged a public process so advocates and original designers of the city's financing system can weigh in.

Votes at a glance: The roll call on Item 11, described in the meeting as "an ordinance amending the campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.144 to cap the amount of public matching funds," resulted in 6 ayes and 5 noes; the ordinance failed (8 votes were required for passage).