Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee forwards ordinance to cap public matching funds after court ruling
Summary
The San Francisco Special Rules Committee voted to forward an ordinance that would limit public matching funds in the city's campaign finance code, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that counsel says leaves a portion of the program vulnerable to legal challenge; the item goes to the full Board on Sept. 20.
The San Francisco Special Rules Committee on Monday considered an ordinance to amend the city's campaign and governmental conduct code to cap the amount of public matching funds and voted to forward the item to the full Board as a committee report.
Ethics Commission Director Mr. McCrory told the committee that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the McComish decision struck down Arizona's public finance law and left a portion of San Francisco's program—which raises public matching funds when independent expenditures exceed statutory caps—vulnerable to legal challenge. "There is a substantial similarity in the portion of our program where, if independent expenditures or other candidate expenditures exceed the caps that are placed on public finance candidates, that those individual candidates will have their caps raised," McCrory said, arguing the commission prefers limiting the amount of public money distributed at the original cap rather than eliminating the program or keeping the status quo.
Sponsor Supervisor Osborne told colleagues the ordinance is intended to preserve the core of public financing while reducing litigation risk. He pointed to a recent settlement and fiscal exposure: "We actually had to settle a lawsuit that cost the city $300,000 because our campaign laws were not legal," Osborne said, arguing he was "not interested in forking over more taxpayer dollars" to defend the city again.
City legal counsel in the record explained that courts may look to whether San Francisco's matching mechanism meaningfully ties public funding to independent expenditures, and said the exact judicial outcome is uncertain. When asked about changing rules during an election cycle, counsel responded that a law held unconstitutional cannot be salvaged solely by prior candidate expectations.
Public commenters expressed broader frustrations with city government during the public-comment period. Ace Washington said he would "do a story on city hall" and criticized the current state of city government, while Douglas Yap questioned whether public matching funds are effective and suggested eliminating the Ethics Commission to save money.
Supervisor Carmen Chu said she respected the Ethics Commission's advice and that the amendment would "by and large maintain the integrity of the public financing campaign," and indicated she would support forwarding the item.
The committee then moved the ordinance forward as a committee report to the Board meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 20; the motion carried without recorded objections or a roll call. The meeting adjourned.
The Board will consider the ordinance at its next meeting; the committee did not adopt final language in committee and the full Board's actions and any vote tallies will be the official record of adoption or rejection.
