Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee splits and forwards changes to campaign finance rules, including raising supervisor spending cap to $140,000
Summary
Supervisor Daly's package to merge supervisor and mayor public‑financing programs, raise the supervisor voluntary expenditure ceiling to $140,000, add reporting thresholds and tighten disclosure for independent mailings and push polling drew debate over mid‑cycle rule changes, reporting increments and potential conflicts of interest; the committee forwarded an amended file to the full board and continued parts for further review.
The Rules Committee considered a package of campaign finance and election‑transparency measures led by Supervisor Chris Daly that would combine partial public financing for mayoral and supervisorial candidates, increase the supervisory voluntary expenditure ceiling from about $86,000 to $140,000 and add a range of disclosure and reporting rules for independent expenditures, mass mailings and persuasion ("push") polls.
Daly said the changes aim to make public financing a credible option for more candidates and to limit the effect of large independent expenditures. He offered two versions of the legislation (two 'amendments of the whole') to reflect technical changes from the Ethics Commission and proposed administrative-fee adjustments. The committee agreed to duplicate the file, forward one version to the full board for the November 6 hearing and continue the second version for a week to allow additional edits and an ethics-commission review.
Debate focused on timing and fairness. Supervisor Sean Ellsborn objected to changing the rules mid‑campaign and noted that three supervisors could benefit from the change; he suggested delaying application until the November 2010 races or adding a 30‑day opt‑in window for candidates who previously rejected voluntary caps. Committee members also asked for a budget‑analyst report to estimate impacts on the public financing fund and discussed whether new supplemental disclosure requirements (reporting each increment above a threshold) should use $5,000 or $10,000 steps and whether thresholds should align with the raised spending cap.
The package also included technical and substantive changes to require filing for mass mailings by independent spenders (Item 6), to define and require disclosure for persuasion polls (Item 7), and to require paid petition circulators to wear a badge identifying them as paid (Item 8); Item 6 was sent forward as amended and Item 7 was forwarded by roll call (two ayes, one no). The committee recorded a roll call sending 'Amendment of the Whole Number 1' to the full board with recommendation (two ayes, one no). Several public speakers supported the package as improving transparency and leveling the playing field against big‑money influence.
The committee asked staff to refine reporting thresholds, clarify whether certain disclosure duties apply across all candidates or only those participating in public financing, and to provide a budget analysis before full board action.
