of these issues. i think that it is a pro for it with something like that? -- with something like ethics, before changes are made, the issues are fully vetted by and for the ethics commission, which is charged with the implementation of these rules. the idea is to have experts in the field with common input from the public looking at these issues subjectively and then come back to the board of supervisors. i am not an expert in this law. i think it is important to hear from these experts on what changes should be made. and then having it -- having the ethics commission forward recommendations to this body is the appropriate way to proceed.

i want to thank supervisor wiener for his willingness to work with us in that spirit. i look forward to continuing to work on these issues in the very near future. let me share with you a couple of the concerns or issues that i have with some of the specific proposals from the ethics commission that are before us right now. i make these points with the hope that some of these concerns can be taken into consideration by the ethics commission. an overall concern that i have is that, under the law, changes or amendments to allow all are supposed to be made only if they meet certain purposes. the idea is that changes to existing ethics laws should be made when they are there to

further the objectives of the ethics legislation. the goal should be to prevent the improper implements -- the improper influence of officials on candidates, making sure the public influence is taken into account, making sure your leveling the playing field for incumbents versus new candidates. preserving the integrity of the government process. ultimately, preserving public confidence in its elected officials. i know that that is the spirit in which these amendments were made. i do think that, with some of the specific changes, it could be seen that it actually have the opposite effect. that is why it is important to take a different look. let me give you some examples. i do have a concern about

exempting the compliant costs -- the compliance costs from the spending caps. my experience is that it is very rare that a grass-roots campaign would actually spend that kind of money. the better-funded candidates will ultimately have the ability to spend a significant amount of money on compliance. the ethics commission itself recognizes that when you provide an exception to a spending cap, there is the possibility of someone exploiting that loophole. in this case, with the mayor's office, you are increasing the amount that could be spent by $147,000. i do have a concern and i appreciate that supervisor wiener recognizes that given that we have increased spending caps, there may be -- there may no longer be a need for that. that was one of my concerns.

the second point is that i believe that the more information that members of the public have, in terms of contributions and the information that is out there, to the extent that there are -- there is a proposal to reduce the frequency of disclosure, as a general rule, i have a concern with that. i think that, if anything, we want to promote more information. that said, i can also see how the impetus behind this might be the practicality of enforcing or making sure that the current rules are complied with. i do wonder if this is an area, do we need resources? does the ethics commission need additional staff to oversee

compliance with the frequency of disclosures? is that what is driving it? i do have concerns about repealing the 24-hour reporting requirement. and replacing it with a schedule where you have less frequency reports. i do not think that moving in that direction, as a general rule, makes sense. i hope that they can examine that issue. i do have concerns about whether or not they should eliminate the current overall contribution limit in terms of the amounts that someone can make, the contributions that someone can make to a number of candidates. i understand that there are some concerns in how practical that is, whether or not it is fair, and how you track those

contributions. again, i want to make sure that we fully explore the implications of that. for certain candidates that are not well-funded, that creates -- there is not necessarily a level playing field. more input and consideration on that point would be inappropriate. -- would be inappropriate. -- would be appropriate. i have some concerns about disclosures for pre-election campaign finances. it would narrow the types of spending that would trigger public disclosure before an election. it would allow one committee --

committees to move money from one committee to another without providing full disclosure. as a general rule, the more disclosure, the better. it is actually something that was previously suggested and proposed by the ethics commission in 2009 and the board of supervisors at that time unanimously said, we do not want to do that. i hope that issue is reconsidered by the ethics commission as well. there is also changes in terms of what is required, in terms of disclaimers on the campaign and ballot measure communications. right now, what we're seeing from the ethics commission is that it would amend the existing rules so that the source of funding for automated phone

calls and independent campaign advertising would not be required to be disclosed to the public if the cost of those communications is under $5,000. those of us who have been involved in campaigns know that, for $4,999, you could have a significant number of robocalls that could be made, especially if you have a service oriel district campaign. -- supervisorial district campaign. if they spend under $5,000, they do not have to disclose that. i think, in that case, giving the public that information is a good thing, not a bad thing. i do have concern about that. another point is that, in the past, some groups had clay --

had taken advantage of available to buy campaign attack ads, mail those ads to voters without ever disclosing who pay for the ads, and again, of putting aside the fact that we do not want to see negative campaigning, we want to make sure that when there is negative campaigning, the members of the cali know who is paying for it and what is being proposed, to eliminate disclosure requirements for electioneering communications. we want to make sure that members of the public have that information. those are the concerns. my hope is that, between now and the time the ethics commission considers these issues, there will be an opportunity for folks from all sides of the political spectrum with different perspectives on these issues to be able to engage and give their

take on these issues. my hope is, in doing that, the ethics commission will take into account some of the points that were raised in the prior report that was conducted by the budget and legislative analysts. again, i thank you for this item and i want to thank supervisor wiener for his work. i look forward to continuing to work with him and the ethics commission, members of the community who are interested in those issues. supervisor kim: thank you both. i am glad you are working together on this ordinance. in light of the hearing we just had, i think it dovetails nicely as we think about how to address some of these other issues that were brought up in the legislative analyst's report. before i moved into discussion, i thought i would open it up for

public comment. at this time, -- supervisor wiener does have the speaker cards. at this time, we will open it up for public comment. supervisor wiener: esther, larry, oliver, charles, francisco. >> thank you very much for allowing me to be able to speak on your proposed amendment. i wanted to agree with supervisor campos. i wanted to start off by reading the provision of the campaign finance reform ordinance and remind people that this is an amendment to a very important ordinance. "these developments, referring

to the public impression that money dominates politics. "these developments undermine the integrity of the political process. the amount of money raised by many candidates and committees supporting or opposing candidates also erodes public confidence in local officials by creating the appearance that elected officials may be unduly influenced by contributors who support their campaigns or oppose their opponents' campaigns." i am grateful that you're planning to send this to the ethics commission for further review before consideration of adoption. i feel that there are five changes that, when i read them, i had to question. who was it benefiting? it was definitely not benefiting campaign finance reform. the part of benefiting finance reform is increased disclosure, public financing, which will

level the playing field as far as contributions, and expenditure limits. these provisions undermine all of that. first of all, i am glad that you are willing to eliminate the campaign overhead expenses. that would create a situation where you are undermining expenditures limits as well as taking away from campaigns competitively warning legal services. reducing the campaign spending and contributions reports -- i am a treasurer for debt -- for an assembly campaign. i have to report 90 days before the campaign, expenditures of $1,000 or more. the last few days, all spoke -- i have to fax a hard copy. it is not a problem. it is easy to do.

who is benefiting by reducing disclosure requirements? third, in terms of the amount of people who can contribute more than $1,500, i doubt very much that you will find very many. again, who is benefiting by removing or changing the requirement? i thought this was especially curious. eliminating the requirement that applicants for public finance cannot make more than 50 total payments to a vendor or contractor that has made a contribution to the candidate. how many vendors and contractors do you know that has the treasurer making 50 payments? it makes me wonder who is benefiting from this provision. thank you very much for letting me speak beyond my time limit. i also wanted to say that one assembly member one-and-a-half and impact on this. campaign finance report --

reform is one of his specialties. i think he would agree with the comments i have made. i wanted to close by saying, also taken from the reform ordinance, if the intent is to help restore public trust in government and electoral institutions, none of these amendments do that. >> thank you again. i will say thank you to supervisor campos for requesting a report from the budget and legislative analyst's office and thank you to supervisor wiener and supervisor campos for working on this legislation. i concur with supervisor campo'' view that these amendments do nothing to further the purposes

of the act as is required when amendments are made without their approval. to the contrary, it is my belief that these amendments reduce transparency, take away disclosures that our corporate and useful, create loopholes, reduces not only transparency but disclosure, and does nothing to help us get a handle on money in politics. we need to educate our community. i appreciate this going back to the ethics commission and having an interested persons hearing or more than one. i would ask that we not just rely on that, but that we asked the ethics commission to engage in concerted and broad-based outreach. that is not something the ethics commission has done in the past. at times, when i was on the ethics commission, when i asked

for increased outreach, i was told that i needed to do that work. so i ask you to ask the ethics commission to convene interested persons hearings and provide evidence and information as to who attends the meetings so we get a full range of people in our community to weigh in. in response to the question about staffing and resources, it is very true that the ethics commission is under-resource, under-staffed. i would love for you to look at that. there is a need to prioritize how the available resources are used. there is not an emphasis on investigation and enforcement. i would suggest that our available resources be shifted to that direction. thank you. >> hello. thank you for taking the position that you will let this

be reviewed further with the ethics commission. my concern is that these proposals have not been road- tested by people who have experienced in campaigns. for example, as supervisor campos mentioned, a campaign you can do with under $5,000 is considerable. we did a campaign last november and we found that, for $1,000, you could have the bay guardian run your add 100,000 times. if you were going to pay for robocalls, they cost about 1.2 since per call. you could send 42,000 calls and none of that would be disclosed under these proposals. that shows a lack of understanding of what really happens in campaigns in san francisco. this is not the first time that the ethics commission has had a disconnect from the reality of san francisco's political life.

one year ago, the proposed new removing the ban on contractors that the redevelopment agency -- that prevented the redevelopment and state agencies from making contributions. they said the officials did not know who the contractor's work. i think it is preposterous to think that they would not know what lennar was doing at the redevelopment agency. it shows a lack of understanding. finally, the los angeles ethics commission collected $2 million in enforcement actions compared to an infinitesimal amount in san francisco. we had a case that was filed about laurie making illegal contributions last fall. it is still pending in san for cisco. it has already been acted upon by the fpcc. there were fined $40,000. san francisco is still sitting

on it but they have had a $40 collection. i also thought you might like to see what the budget analyst is referring to. it really does help people who want to make contributions who want to understand what the rules and limits are. there you have a copy of it. >> midafternoon. -- good afternoon. thank you for holding this hearing. i am going to tell you something you all know. free speech and open elections is something this country has been about for a long time. we still have open elections. unfortunately, we do not have free speech anymore. speech is equated to dollars. and now we have equated dollars to volume. the louder you are, the more dollars you can put in. if you look at the number of

people who actually contribute to your campaigns or contribute to politics, it is an extremely small percentage. what we have is a very small percentage of the population having any speech at all when it comes to determining the issues before the electorate. the only way we will be able to control speech, volume, dollars, is through disclosure. i would encourage that we have as much disclosure as possible through every step of the process. there are so few people who actually participate in funding elections. thank you very much. >> thank you. first of all, this legislation has some drafting errors this by no less than six ethics attorney is reviewing it.

reporting for periods with no activity conflicts with state law. regarding in kind contributions in debt is redundant and conflicts with the provisions of the ordinance. much worse than those are the proposed intentional loopholes and destruction of reforms such as 24-hour reporting and the overall contribution limits. with 48 candidates last year applying the latter proposals to the election, it would have raised the cumulative limit from $1,500 to $24,000. this guarantees increased influence by the deep-pocketed. it did not mention on constitutionality as a basis for removal. their proposed reducing the threshold to the states loophole-ridden standards.

supervisor campos mentioned, in 2009, the commission proposed reducing the spending, exempting membership communications, and some more. the board of supervisors unanimously projected that. finally, the amendments along with some other provisions gut disclosure for groups engaged in election communications, restoring the loophole notoriously used in past elections. it eliminates disclaimers for independent advertisements and robocalls. as a whole, the legislation is written against the public interest. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am from district 1. i am a student of history, in

particular, american democracy. i want to remind everyone about the remark by james madison. "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." and the remark about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others by winston churchill. in this case, the ethics commission is trying to gut the regulations we have in place to govern campaign donations and disclosure. looking at this legislative digest, i am a layperson. i do not know the supper well. -- this stuff very well. i read the ethics digest and thing, that is not so bad. i have to talk to my friends to find out what is wrong with it. for example, the legislation would impose consistent

disclosure and disclaimer requirements whenever a third party spends $5,000 or more for such communications. it does not say that it is not requiring disclosure for spending less than $5,000, which we obviously need. i am concerned about the charitable fundraisers. what is a charitable fund- raiser? it could be an industry advocacy group. i am concerned about the proposal to limit -- to take be removed limit for contributions. somebody like ron conway could come to the city and give $5,000 to every single candidate. i am concerned about the list. when you make lists caught in items one and two in this proposal, you are opening up the legislation to loopholes. thank you.

>> i am a former ethics commissioner. i want to address two issues. first of all, as to where contributions should be made, supervisor wiener is correct. it is much better if contributions are made to and reported by candidate committees rather than some phony ballot measure committee or some phony issue education committee. my commission, at the request of judge grant, i made the motion to put pro o on the ballot, which limited expenditures for and against candidates to $500. because of court decisions, it is difficult to enforce limits on the contributions. it is still better if the contributions are disclosed. secondly, i wanted to educate you about the complaint process.

in addition to distinguish people that i serve with, contrary to the impression that we were sweeping complaints under the rug, most complaints, commissioners unanimously felt that the conduct was sleazy, unethical, a conflict of interest and should be stopped. the city attorney always advised us, unequivocally, that we have to find evidence of a violation of one of the specific laws that the charter mandates the ethics commission enforces. part of the thing that needs to be done in order to strengthen the ethics commission is to amend the laws that commissioners and force so they are able to find specific violations of the laws they enforced and they can take

disciplinary action. thank you. >> i wanted to echo support for the concerns of supervisor campos. about this draft. i hope it does get sent back for it when i hear that some of the options in the draft talk of presenting complaints because from reporting regulations, reducing the frequency, that there may not be a 24-hour requirement, i am asking myself, how does this for the ordinance? it seems it makes it easier for the commission, for the staff, and for those who have to file reports. but is that furthering the purposes of the ordinance? others may speak to that. on the exempting complaints, i am having fun going through all

of the possibilities and playing weasel games with what our compliance costs. when i was on the ethics commission, we would have a sub- forum duo who would try to play weaseled things. how can you get around a regulation? how can you get around a proposal that's what can you do? we didn't -- we not only look at the good, but how can people get around it? that is what worries me about some of these aspects, weakening and lessening it. this goes back to the question of staffing. while ethics may not have money for tv, the idea of having more interested parties meeting is worthwhile. whether they can be on skype or some other technology that is widely available, communicated easily so that others who are not able to attend do not find out about it and can still monitor what was said, what