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 of reducing

reporting threshold by committees -- it's not included in here. the commission discussed making it mandatory that the commission -- the contribution forms specifically state that contractors are not permitted to make contributions. so those are some of the examples of things that were passed by the commission, but which are not included in here. the larger issue beyond those specific things is where the commission has run into a public buzz saw is narrowly [inaudible] how something can be viewed. like on draft committee as an example. or they cannot act in the case of a commissioner, only on staff or department heads and after those narrow views were determined by the

commission, there was no subsequent action by the committee to close those loopholes so all the loopholes we saw before continues to exist, year after year after year, although the situation continues. you can take as an example, the airport commission president. mr. mazola, who on his face -- speaker: there's a lot of stuff that we could throw out, but i'm trying to focus on mr. manarti in regards to those things we have spoken to and said this should be done, and they bear on this, and i would like us to discuss why we're not recommending that they be in there, rather than just a wish list we like in a perfect world. that's great, but i think my colleagues would get very angry at me if i open it up

that much. and they should. so just in regard to those things that we've said. this should be done and -- that are not in here. and i would like mr. manarti -- speaker: i think i've given mr. manarti a list of those. speaker: i don't know if you can reference mr. bush's letter on page 2. there's a list of six items, specifically which he just spoke on, i think he mentioned all of them. and -- speaker: can i ask in regard to these six items. speaker: have you analyzed them and made a conscious decisions as to all of them and why they should not be encompassed within these proposed changes? speaker: not with respect to all of

them. speaker: part of the reason i wanted to take time here. speaker: that's good. if you don't mind, i mean, i can go through these six with you and sort of tell you about them and sort of where they were and -- speaker: mr. chair, why don't i suggest we not do that. we've talked about the fact it's going to be bifurcated and staff provides us with a memo so we can think about it for the next time and then really come back with some exhaustive thought as to why, whether we want to incorporate them or not incorporate them. speaker: i do have some concerns about holding up regulations if we all agree that we should make changes for things that we also could and maybe should address. i don't think they're

mutually exclusive. i don't we have to holdup the whole do what we -- if we agree, there's other things that need to be done and we can put it on for next month as well. we can put the new ones on next month as well. i don't think we have to do them together. speaker: we can deal with what we've got and vote on it knowing we're going to revisit this next time for perhaps some augmentation. speaker: sure. speaker: one short comment which is the first one with respect to the draft committee. my understanding is a few years ago, this was passed by the commission, was shocked to members of the board of supervisors and it didn't go anywhere. so

speaker: we revisit it. speaker: perhaps you can provide us with analysis as to those matters as to why, perhaps, we want to recommend those should go into this. we're not, lrlt. all right. speaker: that's an agenda item for next one. i think the commissioners made clear what he wants and we can talk more in detail about the agenda when we get there. speaker: got you. speaker: one thing that ms. abdule raised, that does concern me -- are we talking about significant objections to what has been proposed or is this mostly about other things that we

should be doing that are not included because -- i am having a hard time figuring out where the real disputes are between people who are unhappy with the proposal and what we're proposing. speaker: without certainly trying to put word in people's mouths. my understanding as a general matter, most folks are on board with the concept of stream lining these reporting kwirlts. requirements. speaker: but the specifics matters. is that 7? 1.162? speaker: that's 1.163 is the member communication. the number 1.163. let me get the page. speaker: right. that's on page 10 of the memo. speaker: right. speaker: isn't there also some

concern with 1.162? speaker: definitely. my understanding is the concern is that there will not be vendor reporting for election area in communication under our proposal. and that there should be vendor reporting even though that would be different than say, what's required under state law for independent expenditures. speaker: i'm sorry, because vendor reporting is currently required and we'd be removing that? speaker: we would be removing it. so all the requirements for reporting would be consistent with what's on the 496, that's correct. i'm sorry, swi the state form for expenditures. speaker: 1.162 and 1.163 -- speaker: mr. bush said that there should be an expansion of the

state law requirement so that there is reporting -- 24 hour reporting due the day after the election. speaker: do we currently require that? speaker: no. speaker: this would be adding -- this is not a criticism that we're removing something that's already acquired? speaker: that's correct. speaker: how do you the commissioners want to proceed? like i said, i'm hearing mr. bush and saying there are other things that we need to address. it does seem like a lot of these things -- there's not much dispute on and i do have some concerns, but i'm not going to be able to send it to the board in time to be relevant to this

election. at the same time i know it's a complicated matter and there's a lot to digest, so i'm happy to defer this to the next meeting, but if we feel we have consensus on this, i'm also happy to go forward. speaker: i'm satisfied with the discussion and i thank the indulgence of my colleagues, in regards to the substance that's there, we can vote on it with the understanding that we'll have this back on the agenda next time for possible augmentation. i think that might be a good way to do it. speaker: commissioner hayon. speaker: when do we need to get it to the board? speaker: i'm not sure there's a clear answer to whether if we get it to the board the next day, it will definitely be in place for the election,

but why don't i afford the city staff on recommended timing. speaker: it might be helpful to think about the timing issue right now. whenever the commission approves the final version of what is comfortable with. have you to add a minimum of two months for the board of supervisors process. that's assuming the board of supervisors have no further amendments. if -- it can tact on another month or two. there's a few procedural things to make it a significant timeline. the ethics commission meets once a month, in the past, ethics commission has met, sort of on a special meeting basis to deal with legislative changes like that, but to the order of two to four

months is realistic. as to what would be necessary for the people out there that needs to compile with this stuff, it would need to be in place by early august, but it will be better to have it in place a couple of months before that. speaker: yes, the next meeting into february would probably be -- it would still be a close call, let's say that. speaker: okay. speaker: that's helpful. speaker: if we continue and pick it up at the last minute at the next meeting, i was thinking that would be our last chance to really get it in and feel good about the timeline,

even the projected timeline we may build in. speaker: this would be in place in a fair timeline to the effected parties. i think you would need to get something out at next month's meeting. speaker: i mean, is it a thing where our chances are better if we get it out now than if we get out next meeting -- speaker: it's hard to say because it's going to depend on the big factors here. it's the energy and the focus of who is the legislative sponsor. i don't know if that person has been identified yet, but it has to be what supervisor takes it up and how quick they get to the process. speaker: any other questions? speaker: are there competing activities? i don't know if the board is working more or less so get

there. during the budget season, they're pulling their budgets together, and i think they're working on them now. it seems to me -- i don't know, but it seems like next month may be a later time, a better time because i think they're getting their proposals in sooner than later. speaker: starting through the spring through the summer, really. speaker: how shall we proceed? is there a motion on this? speaker: yes. i move that -- i think we have one more aspect for discussion, don't we? think i think i'll have a motion in regard to all the items. that is that in terms of voting on those three things that we vote on them, send it to the board. so

they have -- they then have that, and if necessary, we augment it with something next time, so they are in the process in terms of the bulk of what our efforts are supposed to be tonight. speaker: agreed. speaker: so for decision point one, we voted to adopt -- is there a same motion for decision 0.2 or would the commission rather deal with 2 and 3 together? speaker: perhaps we should -- i would move two and then we can have the presentation on three. speaker: is there a motion to adopt decision point 2. speaker: so moved. speaker: second. speaker: second. speaker: all in favor. speaker: aye. speaker: opposed. hearing none. that motion passes. let's go to decision point 3. mr. manarti. speaker: commissioners, this item or

this part of the amendment concerns the disclaimers that is statements that's has to be included on communications sent by third parties actually and also candidates in this case, when they're sending out campaign communications, and again, we get to this issue of complexity and overlap with state law, and the entire sort of gist of this is just to make city law essentially defer to state law, but augment it in three key ways, and we put this basically on page 12 of the memo that says "if you are sending out mailers or you are posting up, you know, ads on a website or whatever radio ad, et cetera, the general guidance is look to what state law says and comply with that" which

they have to do but do three things to augment disclosure and that's with respect to smaller printing -- they should use 12 point font and right now it's 10 point font under state law. and there's an example of state -- have a threshold for disclosing top donors. it's a $50,000 threshold. it would allow for more disclosure earlier on in the process. once they got to $50,000, it's the same as the state disclosure rules. and finally in an attempt to leverage the really good, well, in our opinion, really good stuff we

have on our website, include a reference to the ethics commission website telling someone, if you want to find out more about this, go to the ethic's commission website. this applies to ballot measures and candidate candidates so it's broader. there's a rule that candidates who under state law are generally not subject to a whole lot of disclaimer requirements would have to basically comply with the requirements for independent expenditures. so again, the intent is to simplify, stream line, and yet provide for a full disclosure. speaker: i had a couple of questions. well, why don't we take public comment

on it and then we can ask questions. speaker: public comment on 0.3. speaker: i wanted to talk about anonymous donations, funding campaign communications. and how that should be disclosed. i don't think the staff analysis of the grand jury proposal really does justice to it. they site two national writers who basically support this concept and elsewhere in their discussion, they talk about [inaudible] at some length. and this is a regulation that he really does support because it nudges behavior towards disclosure. on a national

level, anonymous funding of campaign communications really took off in the last cycle. it has gone from a small part of the pie to a really huge part of the pie. and i think staff should be analyzing what went on in the last election cycle in terms of the state assembly races here in san francisco where a lot more money came in. and in general, i don't think there's any question that the level of funding for races in san francisco has increased dramatically in the last ten years. and when funders knows they can do things anonymously particularly those coming out of state, even if it's going to be disclosed, you get through the election cycle and you worry about that later. the idea is really, if

you're going to put a disclaim -- disclaimer ad, say you're going to fund it anonymously. this is not going to say this is only funded by big donors or out of state money or out of district money. it's a question of whether people are willing to stand behind what they put up money to put out to the public. and i'll tell you, i mean, as you're coming in from all kinds of sources these days i don't watch tv much, and san francisco is not a really good tv market for ads, but on the web, on your phone, you get all kinds of smash ads in the last election and there should be disclosures about where the money is the coming from. i think that's important. it's also

important that the ethics commission looks to get out in front on these issues and not try to justification it after the fact. because then the election has come and gone. thank you. speaker: thank you. speaker: good evening, jonathan mencer. i want to make a small pick point on the issue disclaimer. i want to emphasize these proposed rules are really strengthening the current system. a san francisco system. i don't think it can be argued that they're weakened and it's taking a step backward. in our letter we cite one example to give you an idea of the effective overlapping of the regulation, where one advertisement might requires a 4 point

disclaimer. we also discussed how billboards in san francisco and i believe this was a point raised in the memo, only require a 14 point disclaimer as opposed to 5% of the height which is a state requirement. there's little examples like this and i can keep rattling them off of areas where the san francisco law may have an issue that's not being fully addressed, and i think the state law does that well. and again to the point early of making compliance easier with the rule of state law, plus three additional items. i think it helps many actors and many politically actors especially those who is less sophisticated in the community in order to comply with the law and not get dinged on little points for having 10 or 11 points. that's one point i want to emphasize. and according to anonymous donations, i would like to mention in the past year, sb 27 which was passed by the state

legislature added a new amendment to code 8422. speaker: thank you so much. speaker: comments, questions from the commission on this?

>> essentially, it sort of like it's a twofold thing. one is a question of justification for the need for it which quite frankly i don't see at the

local level. i stated plainly here. primarily for two reasons. one is that as jonathan mentioned, the state law disclaimer or disclosure requirements, are quite different from the federal law disclosure requirements. those are incorporated into our law.. if there's an agreement to use funds given to a nonprofit and there's an agreement to use those funds for it would ballot does those are disposable funds. that becomes an issue of enforcement but those are disposable funds. even if there is into an agreement they see the nonprofit spends 50,000 bucks in a year, on anything, contributions expenditures, they have to start disclosing the donors. so, this past year and it's quite robust. that's number one. number two is, that we have an election hearing communication rule that says if you collect money you send out, not i.e. ads but election here

stuff so you use the magic words 500 or more within a 98. europe to disclose the donors that you use their phones. so there are -- the regulatory regime is different at the local level. the need quite frankly a lot of these nonprofit groups that have acts. they use the tax to disclose the donors. then as a general matter, what we say in the memo is, this is different than -- there is prof. durkin who said that came up with this idea obviously much smarter than me but -- there are certainly very smart people who disagree with us. including the number of local -- national figures who say, look, this is different than saying top donors. because top donors serve as a key for people to say, that the person. oh, you know what, maybe i like them made i dislike them. if a

shortcut. saying somebody is not disclosing their donors that's a criticism i agree with -- that's a fact but there's a direct implication in a way that donor disclosure doesn't have a map which is you're not disclosing your donors and you should be. and you're trying to get around letting us know who it is. that's a negative statement which quite frankly is not clear that the government should be having somebody say by implication. so, to me it's a couple things. one, it's a need for it in terms of the law a need for it in terms of the fact and whether it's actually wise policy. so that's what we put >> let me ask you a practical question and i'm looking again in example 3 from --. if my top two major funding donors are anonymous, which would put there right now? under the proposal >> this wouldn't apply if they were anonymous >> so that life would be like? this would be a four line disclosure or five line

disclosure? >> it wouldn't be any disclosure. >> there would be anything? >> yes >> i get this to the first point that -- made. this paul's policy from purpose of prof. durkin and others it's much more applicable to federal elections not local elections in california. local elections in california major donor for the purpose of this threshold $20,000 threshold will not remain anonymous. >> so you are saying you could not -- every disclosure is going to disclose their major top two major donors by law recently? >> yes. if they're an independent expenditure [inaudible] >> where is the hondo just adding the term anonymous? you given a good all-encompassing

argument saying we've got it covered. it's taken care of. why do we put in specifically the word, anonymous.? i don't see how that in any way isn't a problem? you haven't told us that adding of that term is really a problem. unless i missed something. >> i think he is saying and >> i may be mistaken >> i may be too. >> i'm not the brightest -- >> i'm struggling myself. i think what he is saying you could never in the situation within ie have major funding by an anonymous donor donor because you have to include the names of the top donors. >> right good soda spots to commissioner kean's question, this is certainly technical stuff. i think jesse's greatest of, but certainly beyond