Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Fund Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget committee accepts amendment, continues vote on $5 million transfer from Election Campaign Fund
Summary
The Budget & Finance Committee debated a one-time transfer of up to $5 million from the Election Campaign Fund into the general fund and an amendment that would require the Ethics Commission to determine by January 2011 whether additional funds are needed for the mayoral race; the committee accepted the amendment and continued the matter one week for further review.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee on took up an ordinance that would transfer up to $5 million from the city’s Election Campaign Fund to the general fund as part of the FY2007–08 budget. Chair Supervisor Jake Magulu introduced an amendment to put the commitment in writing: the Ethics Commission would assess by January 2011 whether the fund is sufficient for the November 2011 mayoral election and, if it is not, the city would appropriate up to $5 million to replenish the fund.
The amendment—and the broader proposal—drew sustained debate from supervisors, the mayor’s office and scores of public commenters. Phil Ginsburg, the mayor’s chief of staff, said the mayor supports public financing and that the amendment is a transparency measure meant to reassure advocates who asked for a written commitment. “If the Ethics Commission determines that the election campaign fund is insufficiently funded, the city and county of San Francisco shall appropriate up to $5 million,” Ginsburg told the committee.
Supporters of public financing pushed back. Stephen Hill of the New America Foundation and other advocates warned the transfer would set a precedent of using the campaign fund for general purposes. Hill said the move would “make the public financing fund into a slush fund,” arguing the board should not tap money intended to preserve voter-owned elections. Su Vaughn told the committee she “does not trust these people” to restore the money later and urged the board to preserve the fund’s integrity.
Other public commenters and analysts disputed the staff and Ethics Commission projections cited by supervisors. Rob Arnoux, who helped craft the mayoral public financing program, said the figures discussed in the room conflated the amount available midrace with the amount available at the start of the next mayoral race, and cited a lower opening-range projection of roughly $1.7 million to $4.5 million depending on timing. Committee members and budget staff acknowledged uncertainty in long-range estimates and noted the board will have multiple budget opportunities to adjust funding before 2011.
Supervisor Jake Magulu repeatedly defended the proposed transfer as a pragmatic response to immediate budget shortfalls and pledged to protect the public financing program; he told the room, “I guarantee you this money will be there.” Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams cautioned that an ordinance cannot legally bind future boards to a specific appropriation, a point several supervisors and commenters raised in questioning whether the written pledge is enforceable.
After extended discussion and public comment spanning the committee’s public-comment period, a motion to adopt the amendment and continue consideration for one week was made and seconded. The committee accepted the amendment and continued the ordinance for one week to allow members, staff and the Ethics Commission time to review the language and implications.
Next steps: the committee continued the item for one week; the ordinance will return to the Budget & Finance Committee for further review before any final vote by the full Board of Supervisors.
