Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules committee continues technical campaign‑finance amendments for further briefing
Summary
The Rules Committee continued a package of technical campaign‑finance amendments recommended by the Ethics Commission to June 13 to allow staff briefings on penalty‑of‑perjury coordination language, third‑party expenditure reporting and public‑finance reporting.
The San Francisco Rules Committee on May 1 continued a package of technical campaign‑finance amendments recommended by the Ethics Commission to its June 13 meeting, asking staff to bring Ethics Commission representatives to brief supervisors on several proposed changes.
The proposed amendments are largely technical and address voter information, reporting and enforcement language the Ethics Commission adopted recently. Committee members pressed staff for clarification on a new signed statement under penalty of perjury for candidates certifying there was no coordination with outside committees; supervisors asked how that change would affect enforcement and whether there is precedent in local campaign finance law.
Key elements described by staff include:
- Voter information pamphlet: indicate which candidates have accepted a voluntary expenditure ceiling in contests where public financing or voluntary limits are in place (applies to limited races such as the District Attorney and City Attorney in some cycles). - Coordination statement: a required signed statement under penalty of perjury from candidates certifying they did not coordinate with independent committees (Ethics Commission will propose the form and enforcement context). - Improved public reporting: modernization of web‑posted third‑party expenditure disclosures and a statutory direction asking the Ethics Commission to analyze public‑financing program administration and reporting.
Why it was continued: Supervisors requested an Ethics Commission representative to discuss the penalty‑of‑perjury language and to walk the committee through how the web‑based disclosures and supplemental reporting would work in practice. The committee set the item for further consideration at its June 13 meeting so members can review materials in advance and receive the Ethics Commission briefing.
Next step: The Rules Committee will reconvene on June 13 to hear the Ethics Commission’s staff presentation and to consider the ordinance after that briefing. If advanced, the ordinance would return to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and any further amendments.
