Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics commission reviews November 2020 public financing report; staff flagged record participation and asked for deeper analysis
Summary
Commission staff reported that Phase 2 changes to San Francisco's public campaign financing system produced the highest participation rate to date (62%), public funds exceeded private contributions for the first time, and dispersed public funds totaled about $3.4 million; commissioners asked for further analysis on independent expenditures, nonmonetary contributions and fund sustainability.
San Francisco's Ethics Commission reviewed its staff'prepared report on the November 2020 public campaign financing program and heard that the Phase 2 changes introduced before the 2020 election led to record participation and larger public disbursements.
Rob Hoch and Pat Ford presented highlights from the report: Phase 2 increased the initial payment for participating candidates to $60,000 and raised the per-candidate cap for Board of Supervisors races to $255,000; matching ratios were adjusted to 6-to-1 for eligible contributions, and a $150 per-contributor cap was imposed for matching. Staff reported that 62 percent of candidates on the ballot were approved for public funds (the highest participation rate since program inception) and that public funds dispersed during the general election cycle totaled a little over $3.4 million. The office said public funds represented roughly 64 percent of candidate expenditures in that cycle and that the average distribution per candidate was approximately $431,000.
Commissioners focused questions on independent expenditures and disclosure. Commissioner Bush and others asked how many independent-expenditure (IE) committees targeted particular races and whether contributions routed through third-party groups (for example, groups like Progress San Francisco) could hide donor identities or shield restricted sources. Staff explained that independent-expenditure committees are constitutionally protected from many of the restrictions that apply to candidate committees, but that nonmonetary contributions and major-donor filings (Form 461) are reportable and that staff can compile timelines of expenditures using e-filing dashboards. Staff said 24-hour disclosure rules help reveal last-minute expenditures even if full donor records may appear later in year-end reports.
Commissioners asked about the sustainability of the public financing fund and the underlying formula. Staff said the ordinance currently requires an annual appropriation of $2.75 per resident and that the fund has a $7 million maximum; staff and budget offices will continue to monitor whether current appropriations and projected participation are sustainable, particularly in mayoral election years when draws on the fund are larger.
Next steps: commissioners asked staff for deeper analysis of third-party spending (support and opposition), which committees drove activity in particular districts, the role and reporting of nonmonetary contributions, and whether the program's funding formula or maximum fund size should be revisited. Staff agreed to provide slides from the presentation and follow-up analyses.
