Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors continue campaign-finance amendment, schedule closed-session counsel briefing after U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Summary
An ordinance to amend San Francisco's public-financing matching provisions was continued for one week so supervisors could receive closed-session legal advice following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision affecting similar trigger provisions.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to continue consideration of an ordinance amending the city's campaign and governmental conduct code to cap public matching funds tied to spending triggers and to meet in closed session with outside counsel for legal briefing.
Supervisor Mark Farrell, sponsor of the draft ordinance, told colleagues the measure responds to a June U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar provision in Arizona's public-financing law. He said the change is meant to align San Francisco's law with that ruling and to avoid costly litigation that had previously cost the city about half a million dollars.
Supervisor Kim moved to delay the item for one week in order to hold a closed-session counsel briefing; Supervisor Campos seconded the motion. Several supervisors said the substance of public financing remained an important public policy question but that the board needed counsel guidance on litigation risk and on how San Francisco's partial public-financing system differs from Arizona's model.
President Chu confirmed the board would continue the item for one week and hold a closed-session meeting with outside counsel. Attorneys acknowledged the Ethics Commission had earlier approved the change with a supermajority vote. Supervisors asked counsel to review a near-term trial-court ruling in New York that addressed similar trigger provisions.
Why it matters The ordinance would amend a trigger-based matching mechanism that, if left unchanged, could expose the city to litigation after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar provision. Supervisors said they want to avoid a repeat of past costly settlements and ensure the city's public-financing code complies with constitutional requirements.
What's next The board continued the item to the following week and will meet in closed session with outside counsel to review litigation risk and options. No final vote was taken.
