Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics Commission narrows loophole for "draft committees," orders them to file campaign reports
Summary
Commissioners approved local rules to classify entities that raise/spend $1,000 or more to support an identifiable person who is not a declared candidate as "draft committees" and required them to file the same campaign finance reports as primarily formed committees for the same office.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted to add local campaign-finance provisions aimed at groups that raise or spend money to encourage an identifiable person to become a candidate. Commissioners approved Decision 0.1 and Decision 0.2, creating a local category called a "draft committee" and requiring such committees to file the same campaign finance reports required of primarily formed committees when they operate in support of the same city elective office.
Commissioner Sankre described the proposal as a response to last summer's mayoral cycle, when multiple committees appeared to function like campaigns for a nondeclared candidate and raised substantial sums without the reporting that would apply to a declared campaign. Commissioners debated how to define "support": whether the definition should capture only public urging to "run" or broader financial activity that effectively encourages an identifiable person's candidacy.
The commission adopted amended language requiring coverage of activity "in order to support the qualification or election of an identifiable person for city elective office" and retained a definition of "support" that includes public or non-public actions or statements that encourage or urge an identifiable person.
The commission also amended filing language so that draft committees must file the same campaign finance filings, reports, or statements required by state or local law for a primarily formed committee supporting a candidate seeking the same city elective office. Commissioners noted that further regulatory definition (by rule) may be needed to address loopholes in specific scenarios, and staff retains authority to propose clarifying regulations in the future.
Motions to adopt the amended Decision 0.1 (definition/coverage) and Decision 0.2 (filing parity) carried on voice votes.
