Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics Commission orders $74,409 penalty and $4,650 forfeiture in long-running Lynette Sweet campaign case
Summary
The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted unanimously Sept. 26 to assess a $74,409.18 penalty and order a $4,650 forfeiture against former candidate Lynette Sweet after staff said her publicly funded campaign failed to document roughly $24,803 in expenses and had unpaid corporate debts totaling $4,650.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted unanimously Sept. 26 to assess a $74,409.18 administrative penalty and order forfeiture of $4,650 against Lynette Sweet and her committee, Sweet for Supervisor 2010, concluding staff proved multiple violations of the city’s Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance.
Staff presented the enforcement case at the meeting, saying the committee received $57,439 in public financing but failed to provide supporting documentation for approximately $24,803 in expenditures and $8,750 in contributions. Staff also reported two unpaid corporate expenses totaling $4,650, which it treats as unlawful corporate contributions and asked the commission to order that amount forfeited. Based on the alleged violations, staff recommended an administrative penalty up to the charter-allowed maximum; the charter allows a penalty of up to three times the improperly reported amount, which staff calculated as $74,409.18. Staff recommended a $50,000 penalty but noted the commission may impose up to the charter cap.
Catherine Augimoto, hearing for staff, summarized the audit findings and asked the commission to admit enforcement exhibits into the record. Commissioners questioned staff about the level and timing of cooperation; Augimoto said the respondent had provided some documentation but had been largely nonresponsive since the earlier show-cause proceedings.
Commissioner Kopp moved to impose the full $74,409.18 penalty and order forfeiture of $4,650. Commissioners expressed concern that Sweet’s lack of cooperation since the earlier staff contact and the age of the matter — relating to the 2010 campaign — weighed against mitigation. After discussion, the commission carried the motion unanimously.
The order requires Sweet to produce missing documentation, file any outstanding campaign statements, forfeit the $4,650 in corporate contributions and pay the commission’s assessed penalty per the order. The commission noted that collection might be limited by the respondent’s ability to pay and that referral to the Bureau of Delinquent Revenue could follow if amounts remain unpaid.
Next steps: the commission’s order will be issued as a final decision and the enforcement staff will pursue collection and any compliance actions set out in the order.
