don't think that we have to deal with all c fro changes in one meeting. there's other c fro changes we can address. i do think mr. bush raises a good point if there are things that we haven't addressed that we should be, let's take those up. i don't know that we should holdup all proposed changes because it doesn't include everyone we want to change in c fro. but i open it up to my fellow commissioners. speaker: i'm prepared to move that we -- on decision point 1 that we approved the section 1.114 a 2 and 1.114 c as set forth in the [inaudible]. speaker: mr. keane. speaker: i'll second that.

those two specific aspects, the supreme court of the united states has been rather definitive that that's something that we cannot indeed enforce. and we did vote a few months ago exactly the way commissioner reanne is proposing and we voted unanimously that's not in our power. on those i don't have a problem with, and i think it's redundant and i second mr. hurt. speaker: all in favor. speaker: aye. speaker: opposed. hearing none that motion passes. speaker: can you go to the next. speaker: thank you, chair. the second set of amendments is with respect to reporting requirements for

third parties who are involved in supporting or opposing candidates for city elections and the city has instituted three c fro a number of reporting requirements over the years, which are designed for primarily for two things. one is general disclosure to the public. so that the public can fairly judge messages. so that there is a transparency with respect to political actors. but then also so the voluntary and the individual expenditure ceilings, we can monitor them and raise them if necessary with independent expenditure healings and if there's a certain amount of spending. so the reporting requirements are put in place for those two purposes. and

what has happened over the years is that a number of these requirements overlap. overlap with each other, but also overlap with state law, and a few years ago, an important thing happened in state law which is that within the 90 days prior to an election, any outside group which can be an individual, it can be a pack, it can be a trade association, whoever it is, anybody who is making independent expenditures saying vote for, vote against these particular candidates, has to file a report with the ethics commission to disclose that spending. the spendings in the elections happen after labor day, so within the 90 days. particularly with mailings, the

overlap is significant, and i know having been in the compliance sector for a while, it's very confusing. and the xafrl we give is of a mailing, if you do a mass mailing, let's, say of $5,000 which is what one ever these things would cost, you have numerous state and local filing requirements that you have to worry about complying with. and with parties that have money, that compliance is usually what happens. what we see though, is that the less sophisticated parties, the parties with less money want to fail the law, and we end up -- it ends up as a discouragement really for these groups. so in the effort of sort of stream lining simplifying and in a way that will benefit all who are involved in the political process, we have

proposed basically requiring having three requirements and it's appendix c is what we're trying to do. and it's the filing requirements for state law and local law and you'll see there's various thresholds and different due dates. different forms and what we propose doing is breaking up reporting requirements according to the type of communication and there's basically. independent expenditures, same for or vote against a candidate with the so called magic words, and we propose adopting the state's standard of $1,000 spent for a candidate. it's requiring a copy of the actual

expenditure to be filed with us, sort of the same way it is now. then we have election hearing communication. we propose shortening the due date to 24 hours, but clarifying it's $1,000 per candidate and this is among other things in an attempt to get to ballot measure, communications which, you know, a ballot measure where there's a candidate and his or her face is huge on the mailer, we think is communication filer -- a lot of people tells us there's ballot communication where there's a long list of names where they say these people have endorsed. that's the hearing communication. it has to be filed. it has to comply with the disclaimer

requirements. we propose having -- that it will bring in the significant election hearing communication where say a candidate is clearly benefiting from a mail error an advertisement with respect to a ballot measure. finally member communications, again, these are reported currently primarily to -- with respect to the expenditure ceilings and we would propose actually lowering the threshold instead of 5,000ed per candidate within 24 hours to $1,000 per candidate in 24 hours. with all of these, we would require a copy be filed with us so that will be helpful in reinforcement efforts and there's things we go into in the memo and i appreciate it. there was a lot there, but that sums up as a matter of what we were trying to do with this

section. speaker: can i ask you before i open it up to public comment. which of these from pages 7 through end d -- through the end that the commission received the most feedback on? speaker: that's a good question. speaker: you're looking at sub d. speaker: well, i could tell you that -- i would say -- i could tell you the four criticisms we got from the friend of ethics. one is that, and this is in the memo, and mr. bush can certainly -- i don't want to miss characterize what mr. bush says. i'll explain what i think it is and he can correct me if i'm wrong. one is communication hearing which is defined as

communications which reference a candidate $500 or more within a 90 day period of an election of there's a suggestion made that -- at the interest of person's meet that 501 c 3 fundraising event invitations be exempted because often what will happen is they'll be fundraising events where a key note speaker is a public official. there are other examples of that, you know, like debates by non profits, et cetera, where we've exempt them and certainly there are non profits which can do advocate with respect to elections, but because 501 c 3 are by virtue of tax law, they're prohibited from advocating one way or the other way with respect to a candidate. we thought it was reasonable to put it in.

election hearing communications, there's a request that vendor information be included within 24 hours. and again, we responded to that in our summary memo, similarly member communications, there's a request for donor information, which does not exist currently, and which we believe would present significant reporting challenges for the main sources of member communications which are labor unions, which already basically identify who they are. by the way, member communications cannot be -- speaker: can you explain that? speaker: sure. member communications right now are -- speaker: the challenges. what are the challenges? speaker: the member communications owe sgloe member communications has

to be funded by the members themselves. if it's really a member communication, you can't have a third party come in, pay, say here's $10,000, please spend this to go, you know, spend this on mailers or whatever it is sending to your members. it has to be funded by the membership funds themselves. and i know myself, i've been involved in labor unions where over the course of -- they've had to try to determine in other context well how much money is attributable -- if take out $75 from your membership dues or let's say twice a month. the mailer that went out, that's $100,005 $10,000, and 5

thousand numbers. speaker: at one point or other, may because -- over the course of a year or a year and a half, reach up to that hundred dollar disclosure threshold. and so with the exception of political parties and their members, there's no jurisdiction at the federal and state level that requires this disclosure of membership donations from member communications. probably given sort of the -- i would imagine the right of association. and our experience, it's mostly labor unions so most of the time, you're going to know, maybe not the individual who reached that $100 threshold, but you're going to know sort of the people who are the

players who are sending out the mail. so i hope that makes sense. speaker: yes, it does. thank you. speaker: thank you. should we open it up to public comment? let's do that. i don't think that mr. manarti miss characterized anything. we do have a different point of view. let me make sure i'm reciting the first item. the first one we talked about was the non profit of fundraisers. you have non profits involved in ballot campaigns. they can be involved in a ballot campaign where someone is running for office and one of the authors and sponsors the measure. let's say you have a ballot measure dealing with city

park funding, and you have one of the awe -- and you have one of the author to speak on the bond -- on the issue of how important it is to pass that measure and that person happens to be on the ballot. that's why we said there should not be an exemption because they are involved in campaigns that have a spill over onto the candidates. we ask you to consider that. and if you want us to run through examples, i'd like to do so without -- with my attorney present. i don't smear anybody. in terms of the member communications it comes down to how you define a member. and that's been an issue before this commission for more than ten years. as mr. manarti said shall -- as mr.

manarti said, there is -- with money from the state, but it was a member communication from the democrats in los angeles. they cherry picked where it was going. the same thing happens here in san francisco from groups that has a special interest. we don't know who the members are. does anybody know who the members are of buildings and manager's association? are they getting money to candidates and in addition to that, giving money through boma. how about sf city. it was made up of high tech businesses. they're politically active and layer lobbyist. how do we know what -- that's

why we want disclosure of donors to those groups because they're politically active. speaker: i would make one other point. when the disclosures take place, we raise the issue of disclosures of expenditures that are on election day which is currently not the practice here. we did that because so much money is spent on election day for bussing people to the polling place for calls, for direct phone calls to potential supporters to turn out. there's a lot of money spent on election day some the reason why you would want to disclose, not because it's going to change the election because the election is over, but for enforcement. otherwise, you don't get that information until the following february 31st and the person has been sworn into office and voting on things in the meantime when maybe they should not have been. thank you. speaker: mr. chair. speaker: yes. speaker: can i ask mr. bush a

couple of questions. is it out of order? speaker: it's not out of order. i ask that we do public comment and we can bring their bush up for questions. speaker: hello, i'm rob, i was on last year's grand jury, and my comments -- a general comment about this whole amendment we recommended that there be some sort of a statement about how the amend -- amendment further the purposes. you're powered to amend the ordinance is predicated on the amendments further the ordinances. it could be a perform statement or more than that, but there's not a perform statement. if you look at state amendments -- it can be amended if the

amendments further the purposes of the act. there's a perform statement placed in the enacting clause. and there's been some discussion about how some of these amendments might further the purpose. it's posted on the commission's website, whether it's going to expand it or contract it when there's talk on state filings instead. i think it's worth wild to get some sense of whether it's going to increase disclosure or not. thank you. speaker: is it a quick answer? speaker: the only thing i would say with respect to how it furthers

c fro, we do have it in section 1 of the amendments and how it's enhancing the integrity the election process and with respect to the memo, at the tried to at the end of each section state why it furthers c fro with reference to the applicable previsions. so in other words, it's in the proposed language, as well as in the memo itself. speaker: i was referring to -- is it going to effect what's on website? speaker: it will effect was on the website because it will -- the forms will be different, so ultimately the goal is to get to electronic filing. the state forms will still be there. they are there now electronically, so they'll be there. the goal would be to get the other two forms there. to me, it would be easier to read certainly. because you will have one form,

that's election hearing, and one form that's member communication, which we can up load immediately that hopefully will be electronic. we have a form where people fill it out and it's very difficult to figure out what's being. -- what's being reported. speaker: sorry to interrupt public comment. speaker: good evening, my name is jonathan. i'm the associate at the law firm. we submitted a letter on friday that's in the agenda packet. i want to speak broadly to the amendments that are being proposed today and urge the commission that adopt and without delay. the sun in-law -- we have many candidates, both in san francisco who are effected everyday by these laws and to put it simply, these laws,

as mr. manarti has addressed before are very complex and just regulation on top of regulation. the amendments proposed are -- under the current system we need multiple forms being submitted to both the state and local entities for the same expenditure. the same goes for disclaimers which you haven't gotten to yet, but again the complexity of having multiple laws on top of each other isn't meeting the purpose of the act which would be to increase compliance and disclosure. i believe the amendments are taking a big step and i commend the commission to make them a more simple system as

complex. as we wrote in the letter, we believe the amendments being proposed are more simple. they're not benefiting one political side or not. it's an aim in order to create a standard system so all political actors within the city knows what to do. to the degree you may believe that you need to holdover these suggestions. i thoroughly encourage you to take action as soon as possible. it has been mentioned before with the election coming up. the 90 day reporting -- it should begin mid-august. to get everything finalized and on books, we encourage you to act as soon as possible. the main aim of this is really to just create a simplified system in order to help people comply with the law and having these on the books as

soon as possible would help with that. forever those reasons, we encourage you to take -- to act on the simple reforms and do it as soon as possible. speaker: what was your name. speaker: john, i'm with the associate law firm. speaker: thank you. speaker: good morning, i'm with mecer [inaudible]. i represent a number of campaigns in san francisco and i'm an active san francisco voter and resident. so i care about this law both because i'm advising clients but because i'm the one who reads the fine print on the back of the fliers and checks on the reports when i'm curious who has funded something. i would like to start with saying we support the changes recommended and we're excited about the direction that the commission and this staff were taking in terms of cleaning up these laws and

these laws are, as mr. manarti, a clean up issue and -- it's going to improve the data base that a reporter can compare. the third party reports, they're interpreted so many ways. you have one person reported the total value as a mailler and seems -- the reality is that portion was the candidate's name written as an endorsement the next person who might be able to afford attorneys at a firm and have more resources and say you only have to disclose this portion. so it creates inaccurate see because it's not

consistency. cy because it's not consistency. clen what we have now. -- let's clean where we're starting from and go with the suggestions we're hearing from the public. i encourage -- these are clean up changes. we have to start from clean scratch and look at different proposals, if we think it's daunting now, it's a big pack now. i suggest after we go through a few public hearing and heard more about what people are recommending, it's going to be a thicker packet at the next meeting. i recommend we approve this. thank you so much. speaker: what was your name? speaker: eli speaker: elli and the last name is abdoli. speaker: thank you.

speaker: thank you. . speaker: elli and the last name is abdoli. speaker: thank you. speaker: thank you. speaker: good evening commissioner, my name is kevin hanigan and i practice committee election law. i haven't had an opportunity to review staff's changes line by line, but as everybody said, i think -- i think was behind it is a good one to stream line and simplify. i'm reviewing a mail piece during the cycle that -- i have to talk to my staff about eight or nine reports that need to be filed for one piece of mail which might only cost $4,000. the amount on paper that gets sent from our office to the ethics commission, there's so much disclosure that

it makes disclosure, i think, not as effective. i think the timing is important. it seems like the commission is one step in this process after it leaves the commission, it has to go to the board of supervisors, be heard at a committee multiple times, then -- there's the 30-day rule that prevents the board from hearing it that has to get passed the public hearing at the board. you're going to get close to that 90-day reporting window in august. i urge you to move forward with what you can and holdover what you want as well. i would like to commend the staff on a great job. thank you. speaker: mr. keane, did you have questions for mr. bush? speaker: if i may. speaker: do i need my notes?

speaker: yes. speaker: you always do when mr. keane is asking you questions. speaker: you don't have the right to remain silent. mr. bush, one thing that's still somewhat apart of my concerns in doing this, is that the suggestion that there have been a number of things that the commission itself has passed or recommended that bears on this particular matter. over the course over the last couple of years we have various things and recommended various things, and those have not been incorporated in these proposed changes and the staff has not addressed the fact that perhaps they should be incorporated within

these proposed changes. that may have come up -- you've got it in some respects, referred to in regards to the public comment, but could you outline for us what concerns you have about things that you know that we have done because our memories -- our institutional memories are pretty bad. i have to say that. speaker: one of the things that the commissions acted on in may of 2013 was an amendment to improve contractors from six months to 12 months. that has not been incorporated in this prevision. also, the commission passed a request for an amendment to be drafted by the staff for reporting and disclosures by draft committees. those are committees designed to draft someone who is not a candidate which

arose out of the run ed run campaign. when the commission determined that it did not have jurisdiction, the required disclosures at that time. they passed in november. there was a request from staff to draft an amendment to c fro to cover draft committee. that's now, three years and counting or two years and counting. i'm not good at math. i'm good at language, but not math. so that's a second one. there is also a decision, this past august, for the commission to take up consideration of banning lobbyist from making contributions. there's nothing -- there's nothing on the agenda that's taken place in the five months since then and there's nothing in here suggesting it's going to come up in the future. the issue