Ethics Commission Adopts Faster Campaign‑finance Enforcement Procedures, Extends Response Time to 14 Days; Directs Staff to Draft Reporting for Expenditure 'lOb

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted to adopt administrative enforcement guidelines that move settlement actions and penalty determinations to the enforcement division and to extend the response window for alleged violations from 5 business days to 14 days.

Mr. St. Croix, the commission’s executive director, told commissioners the enforcement staff has developed guidance on mitigation and aggravation factors and that the initial penalty for accepting a contribution above the legal limit remains forfeiture equal to 100 percent of the excess contribution. Staff said fines may also be imposed under existing code and that the proposal formalizes procedures for how staff will handle and, where appropriate, present cases.

Erica Boyd of the Sutton Law Firm urged additional notice and due-process protections, recommending the commission adopt a longer response time than 5 days (citing the FPPC’s 14‑day standard and the FEC’s 30‑day standard) and suggested that forfeited contributions be returned to donors where appropriate rather than automatically retained by the city. Boyd also urged a totality-of-the-circumstances approach rather than a purely mechanistic percentage adjustment for mitigation.

Commissioners and staff agreed to extend the response time to 14 days and to use the second mitigation scenario proposed by staff, which brings mitigation/aggravation considerations to the commission for review (rather than applying a rigid formula at staff level). One commissioner noted that forfeiture is statutory and that the commission is enforcing an existing legal requirement rather than creating forfeiture through the policy. The motion to adopt the changes, including the 14-day response period and the second mitigation approach, was seconded and approved by voice vote.

Separately, staff presented a proposal to reintroduce reporting for “expenditure lobbyists” — entities that spend money to influence public opinion with the purpose of affecting government decisions — a category that was dropped when the lobbyist program moved online. Staff said they tracked eight such reports over the last three years, suggested a simple off‑system reporting form for these expenditures, and asked whether commissioners wanted staff to draft legislation. Commissioners agreed that staff should draft the language and bring it back for review before sending it to the Board of Supervisors.

The commission did not change the statute itself during this meeting; it approved administrative procedures and directed staff to prepare draft legislation on expenditure‑lobbying reporting.