Ethics commission delays vote on public financing changes after broad public objections

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on Jan. 14 heard hours of public comment and debate on proposed changes to the city's public financing program and voted to defer final action to its February meeting.

Advocates and campaign practitioners told commissioners the staff's draft would weaken spending limits that help small-dollar, publically financed campaigns. "The staff proposal is a meat cleaver that would undermine the law," said Steven Hill, a co-author of Proposition O, arguing that removing ceilings when independent expenditures rise would eliminate meaningful limits and spur larger outside spending. John Gollinger, a longtime campaign finance advocate, urged the commission to pursue narrower fixes such as raising the increment at which staff raises caps and to consider alternative triggers that preserve small-donor incentives.

The debate centered on a staff recommendation that would lift expenditure ceilings for participating candidates when specified triggers are met. Staff said the change would simplify administration; Mr. Ford, the staff presenter, told the commission he based the proposal on empirical analyses of recent election cycles and committed to strengthen disclosure language so candidates continue to report both contributions and expenditures. "We will clarify section 1.152 so threshold reports continue to disclose contributions and expenditures," Mr. Ford said.

Public commenters warned San Francisco could import some of Los Angeles's worst outcomes if the proposed rule were adopted. "In Los Angeles, the mayoral spending was 136% above the limit — under our system the leading candidate was 56% above," said John Gollinger, citing comparative figures to show the effect of different approaches. Several witnesses, including Catherine Ashworth of the California Clean Money Campaign, proposed a policy package: increase increment amounts (for example, from $10,000 to a larger step), change triggers to count contributions rather than expenditures, and raise public matching rates to give participating candidates more resources.

Commissioners debated whether to take testimony now and vote today or to take comment and defer the substantive decision. Commissioner Ambrose moved — and the commission seconded and approved — to take public comment at the meeting but postpone any action until February so Commissioner Lee can participate. The deputy city attorney advised the commission it cannot legally bar repeated testimony at a later meeting, though commissioners discussed encouraging speakers to offer new material next month.

Before the February meeting commissioners asked staff to return with: jurisdictional comparisons showing which charter cities use contributions or expenditures as triggers and examples of stair-step or full-lift systems; alternative proposals addressing critics' operational concerns; and a chart summarizing where each approach has been used and its consequences.

The commission's deferral leaves the draft ordinances unresolved but sets a clear path: staff will provide comparative data and proposed alternatives, and the commission will revisit the item in February.