we're aiming at people who are spending money in support of a candidate, in september of someone who is not a candidate for elected office and we want to close that loophole. i don't see the advantage of lipting it to people who are encouraging or urging -- i mean why not just leave a1 as-is. i mean, i have another slight amendment to it. what are we worried about that required us to define what "support" means? >> i think that is a fair point. he think what you are generally saying is that if we define "support," or possibly excluding things in the definition. i think that is a very fair point. i would also just point out subsection 4 does allow the ethics commission to propose regulations and i think the reason that we put that in there, we know that to the extent there is any potential ambiguity or loophole, people will try to go there.

that is just how things go. >> this whole issue came up because of a loophole, because someone found a leap hole. >> right. so i think to some extent the ethics commission has the ability to address leap hole lope holes. the only downside if we don't define "support" at all there will be the chance of zero gay and lesbian as of what "support means." >> if we had "support" i would define it as public action or statement or actions encouraging or urging -- i will concede that i'm hoping

that my hypothetic is ridiculous and it would be interpreted in the way that we have all think it should be. >> you just built them their loophole. >> i was thinking that election makes it more restrictive. >> that was my reaction when you said that. >> the big problem we had last time, the committees kept saying we are not a campaign. we don't have a candidate. we can't be a campaign without a candidate. and the commission accepted that. but at the same time, they were raising money and spending

money that had the effect of a campaign while not being regulated. >> could we solve it by having both in the definition? the one here and the one commissioner hur suggested? >> i wouldn't have a problem with that. >> in the sense that there are two holes in the dike and we need to plug them. [ laughter ] >> okay. my other comment on decision point 1 was do we want to limit it to public support? or is that too narrow? >> what provision are you looking at? >> i'm looking at a 1, shall mean my person, group of persons or entity that either

receives contributions of $1,000 or more or makes expenditures of $1,000 in order to publicly support the election? >> you mean take the word "public" out of 2? the definition of "support?" >> i guess that would be redundant. >> i think there is some merit in thinking about taking the word "public" out of the definition of "support." because why would we allow people to take private -- spend money on private actions encouraging someone to run without reporting that? >> we don't want to be in the business of determining whether the expenditure from such an entity took place in a living room or a conference room (run .

>> run for office and i will give you this $50,000. >> mr. st. croix you think it would meet the goals more effectively? i guess i don't understand why it matters where it is? >> i don't think it matters. >> do we need "public?" >> well if it were just a prohibition on support, that would -- i'm thinking outloud

here -- that would be going too far because anybody can say to somebody else, i think you would make a good mayor, i hope you run. what makes it acceptable, is that it's the transfer of money behind that speech that allows us to get involved. does that sound, as i say it outloud, does it sound plausible? no. 2 doesn't stand alone as a prohibition. it's the formation of a committee to do this. and you could have a committee, if it had no money. the five of us got together and had a conversation with somebody, totally independent of our commissioner roles and no money changed hands that is also okay. i'm just sort of kicking the tires. >> that wouldn't stop friends

of taking them out for dinner and saying here are the reasons to run. so we're not capturing that activity. >> what if it's a really nice dinner? >> and they got contributions from others towards? >> then we want to know. >> then we want to know about that. >> and the public wants to know about that. >> is that a public action? >> no. i don't think so. >> right. it would fall under a draft committee. that would be a draft committee. >> it just wouldn't support, -- publication support a candidate essentially? >> i think once you start collecting contributions, as a public action. so if they are at this private dinner and you start collecting contributions for a run at an elective office, i think it's a public action. or it could translate into this. because state law says once you raise $1,000 or more, you

effectively become a committee. >> you just have to function in public. >> well, i do feel like the way this reads right now, that if i collected $1,000 from five friends, which i was told to use to try to convince somebody to run for elective office, and i spent that money by taking them out to -- entertaining them for an evening, that this would not be covered. that would not be covered about i this. i don't know if we're intending to know about that kind of of activity nort. but i don't think we're intending to cover that. . >> in that situation you are not spending money to convince the voters. >> true. >> so i think leaving out the

word "public" is okay. >> okay. any other comments from commissioners on decision point 1? public comment? >> david pillpa. i'm trying to kind of work through this language, including the top of page 2, lines 1-4. sorry, it's giving me a headache. i would suggest a few points. on line 17 and 18, i would reword it slightly to say, "in order to support the qualification of an identifiable person for city elective office." because that presumes that that person has not yet qualified, and that the purpose of the endeavor is to

have them be a qualified candidate. it's not to support the election of the that person. it's really more about getting them to be a qualified candidate and i'm actually thinking less about the draft someone over the summer or draft someone as a written that actually happened in 1999 in ammiano for mayor. i recall some of that, but try not to recall all of it this sec. you could have the same efforts that happened with "run he had run," and progress for all," in the context of a write-in campaign and i'm not sure under this definition it

would get captured. that is why i'm hung up on qualification versus election. >> may i ask you a question about that? >> sure. >> it's not clear to me why that is materially different from what we have? >> well, again it's not necessarily the election of a person. that is not necessarily the goal of the committee or the committee would assert that is not their goal. it's to get them to run and, in fact you might have a committee whose goal is to get someone on the ballot, not to get them elected, but to get them on the ballot to drain votes away from someone else as to help someone else's chances of getting elected that the whole thing is a big trick. you know? we're all operating in good faith in this room, but there are others outside of this room that may not be or may or may not be watch this. >> what was the language?

>> i think it makes it more parallel to no. 1 [#2*-/]. >> instead of the word "qualification," i would use "candidacy." >> i'm not sure if "candidacy" encompasses write-in or not? >> i don't like terminating the end of that sentence. >> presumably someone who has qualified -- that is the point i wanted to make more globally. the problem is the state law definition of "candidate." we

can add this section in local law, which is fine and whatever version ends up tonight or thereafter will work for the moment. but i think we should urge the state legislature to include an appointed office-holder, because that was the route of this to begin with. >> that we definitely can't do tonight? >> no, it's not on the calendar, but something that we could contemplate in future and i would suspect there is support for that. >> do you have other comments about what we can do here and now? >> sorry. thank you for bringing me back. i agree that the language in lines 19 and 20 are somewhat problematic. i don't know that they work into line 16-18. i think they really only apply in subsection b. i mean it's difficult to read

16-18 and imports 19 and 20 in, that the "order to support" language. it just gets a little circular, but i do agree that support should include actions or statements whether public or non-public. that are trying to urge or encourage a particular outcome. i think that is the point of "support." and i'm also trying to think through if you have got a committee under state law that you have a primarily formed committee. i know. right. that this is creating a new animal only under scintilla, but is requiring that animal to file reports.

all right, i will just keep thinking about it. if we haven't figured out the definitions we should try to get that right. it's dangerous to have a definition here that is complicated and interconnected and say that the commission may further adopt presto clarify this. i think we should get it right and not rely on having to go back later and define by regwhere we already have a definition that is intended to be comprehensive. >> because we so seldom try to do things right the first time? >> we should try. i'm being supportive. i will shut up for a while. >> i think commissioner studley is correct that the issue of the words "qualification," will make it

more parallel to decision point 2. line 18. >> so we're going to say in order to support the qualification or election of an identifiable person, the city elective office who is not qualified as a candidate? >> yes. >> and are we going to add that parallel language to support as well? >> no. >> we don't think we need that. >> i think that is probably right. at that point it becomes redundant. i'm okay with that. >> could somebody just explain why? i thought that the change to no. 2 was your thoughts about write-ins? that sometimes the pathway through might be not to encourage or urge to declare as a candidate,

but that a well-funded write-in effort would not be committee or campaign because there was not a candidate. >> you are addressing me? >> yes. i was trying to figure out that particular hypothetical? >> i think that the qualification and/or election takes care of that. i don't know that it matters whether you put it in line 16-18 or 19-20. you probably don't need it in both. i mean, i wonder whether you need the definition of "support" at all, if you have added "qualification," to line 16 through 18. i don't feel strongly about.

mr. st. croix? i think mr. pillpa's point that if you read in what we defined as "support," into it and replace it, it starts to sound fairly redundant. >> well, if i might? i think where i'm having the most trouble now and we're into subsection b for a second. on line 7. that you can have a circumstance where a primarily formed committee perhaps is only filing semiannual reports and not pre-election reports, but in the instance where that primarily formed committee supports a candidate and using the language "support [o-eufpblts/] ," going to the definition here. i think you are trying to get in that instance a primarily

formed committee. >> the reason leaving it in is not redundant, they are going to try to self-define, if they want to get around this provision. >> right. >> so i want them, if they say, we're not raising money to elect him or her, we're just raising money to encourage them. that is covered. we say we are not supporting their election. we are only supporting their candidacy. we might be absurd, but we have had absurd claims before. i don't want them to try to self-define their way out of these requirements. >> don't you review your definition of "support" as

being all-inclusive? >> yes. >> that is why i tend to agree with the idea that we shouldn't eliminate the definition of "support." if we believe that that language is all-in[khrao-ups/]ive and it seems to be it is. >> i'm fining leaving it with it is provided the amendment in line 18 to support qualification or election of an identifiable person. does anybody have objection to that? is there a motion to adopt decision point 1 as amended? >> so moved. >> second. >> can you just clarify what would lines 19 and 20 read,

just as written? exactly as written? >> as written. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? that passes. decision point 2. any comments from commissioners? public comment? >> i'm sorry we were just having a fun little side bar over there.

i guess the problem on page 2 lines 1 through 7 is that there aren't sufficient -- what is the word? comments. >> there aren't sufficient what? >> commas, punctuation. >> okay. >> to read that and try to interpret it and you know we all try to do statutory construction here, but others outside might look at it other ways. >> can you just tell me where you would want to put commas? >> although, i hate it maybe in the case, the passive voice might be better. so campaign finance-related filings reports or statements shall be filed by either a draft committee, or

-- i mean, it's just hard to read what that means for primarily formed committees supporting a candidate seeking the city elective office for which the draft committee is supporting an identifiable person. i really like what we're doing here. i'm just having trouble figuring out what that means. is it that they are filing for a candidate? are they filing for the committee? i'm sorry, i am just having trouble with the language. >> that is the problem with existing law. there is no candidate. therefore, there is no campaign. and we have to identify what that is, because the entities don't exist in current law. >> sorry. if i may, is the intent to say

that draft committees are subject to the same filing requirements is that the same intent? >> yes. >> i was going to suggest language like that. >> does it need to say "draft committees that are supporting an identifiable person?" >> no, because that is the definition of the draft committee. >> well, it is here. i think commissioner lui's suggestion makes sense draft committees shall file the same campaign finance-related filings reports or statements as for or required to be filed by a primarily formed committee. >> right. >> can i just suggest that we cut it -- we use the same language that we have, but on

line 3, stop it after "city elective office?" >> yes. >> i like it. can someone read it again as proposed? >> draft committees shall file any campaign-related filings reports or statements required by either state or local law for a primarily formed committee supporting a candidate seeking the city elective office. or seeking city elective office would be sufficient and take out the "the." >> i thought we had the word "same" in there. >> that would be fine. those three changes.

>> so draft committees shall file the same campaign finance-related filings -- by either state or local law for a primarily formed campaign for a candidate seeking, et cetera. >> i think we're all concerned that you address primarily formed committees in the same cycle. so actually i would suggest saying draft committees shall file any campaign finance-related filings, reports or statements require bed featherstitch required by state or local law, et cetera.

the only change inserting owe same." >> i don't know how that supports the cycle argument. >> you have related filings as opposed to semiannual filings. >> okay. so basically we want any draft committee that is operating to support a candidate for say the mayor's office, to file in the same manner as any other primarily formed committees. that is actually in operation for a declared candidate for the mayor's office. now it's possible, although i honestly don't know how often it happens they could have a

primarily formed committee laying around from an election last year. maybe that doesn't need to file anything this year pause it's not supporting a candidate in this election. >> we'll is a dress that in the regs. i don't think we need to worry about that here >> i have no objection to them. >> that it should be for the same office. >> i think that is fine. anybody have an objection to that? okay. can i ask you did you have any

concerns about our definition of draft committee in support? >> yeah, i think, not to necessary re-open the issue, i think mr. pilpa's concern was subsection 1 refers to qualification or election. in subsection 2, if we just leave it alone, only refers to declarations of candidates and those are potentially distinct actions or things, but i mean i don't have a strong feeling that we need to revisit that. >> okay. i