Ethics Commission approves reduced public-financing cap, sends changes toward Board of Supervisors

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on a special meeting approved revisions to the city—s campaign finance rules that lower the election campaign fund cap to 7,000,000 and make a technical change to the formula that triggers notice to city officials when the fund approaches a shortage.

Ethics commission staff member Sankro summarized the negotiated package, saying the measure "reducing the overall cap of the amount in the election campaign fund from 13,500,000.0 to 7,000,000" responds to concerns that a persistent surplus leaves money idle while other city needs exist. He also told commissioners the board of supervisors opted not to increase the mayoral race cap included in an earlier public-finance proposal and that a third change corrects the mathematical trigger for notifying the board and mayor.

The amendments reflect last-minute negotiations between the ethics commission and the Board of Supervisors. Sankro said the staff—s projection relied in part on historical spending: "The most we've ever spent in a single race is ... 4,800,000," and after factoring projected inflation staff estimated a cap just under 7,000,000 would cover an upcoming mayoral race.

Several commissioners asked procedural questions about the legislative path. Staff said the ordinance language will go to the Board of Supervisors— rules committee (potentially late March or April 5) and then return to the full Board for readings. Counsel and staff confirmed it is within the ethics commission—s authority to adopt the negotiated language and implement it if the Board enacts the ordinance.

During public comment, David Pilpel said the document bearing the changes was prepared after 6 p.m. the night before and criticized the short public notice, saying, "I have not seen this before ... It would have been very helpful if this was available yesterday." Pilpel urged adding explicit notice to the mayor in the insufficient-funds provision and warned against lengthening the campaign season by moving filing deadlines.

Stephen Hill, who identified himself as an advocate for public financing, urged support for the negotiated package while warning against lump-sum funding injections during campaigns. Hill said reverting to year-by-year allocations will keep the program from becoming "a political football" and help the commission and staff plan. He noted past administrations had "raided the fund" in consecutive years and said the negotiated approach struck a reasonable balance.

After a brief procedural exchange, a motion to pass the revisions was made and seconded; the commission gave voice approval and the motion passed. The commission recorded the item as the only item on the special-meeting agenda and adjourned. The ordinance language will proceed to the Board of Supervisors for further legislative action and potential adoption.