argument. so i express what i'm interested in moving forward as the chair of the committee would like to see if we could actually move this without recommendation on either candidate, to the full board, and we can have a discussion with the board on june 9th to make a final decision about which supervisor cohen can take part in that is my motion there is only two of us i would like to think we can get through with a decision and mv forward. >> sure, through the chair, i appreciate your comments and i respect what you are saying, everybody is dealing with a low income community, i again wanted to point out supervisor cohen felt about this decision, the reason why i asked for a continuance as well is i'm not sure we're going to agree on a particular candidate, if we can, sure question send it out, we may have potentially different

candidates we would like to send forward without registers to the board. >> if that is the case you can create a file one with two file, with the applicants and you can table one for the other >> that would be okay w >> i will motion to duplicate the file. send one forward to the full board without recommendation which would include all of the candidates >> there will be two motions you can refer them without recommendation, one with peter cohen, the other with clinton loftman, so it will be two motions, then when it gets to the board, you would approve one and table the other >> okay >> that is fine with me. >> both motions, you want referred without recommendations, yes >> that's right, so we're not keeping anything in committee then. you are okay?

>> i'm okay with that >> the so the motion would be to file, send one file forward with peter cohen's name the other with mr. loftman's, name and recommendation for the board to consider >> yes >> that has been seconded by supervisor, tang we will take that without objection. next item please. >> item number two campaign and governmental conduct code-amending campaign disclaimer and disclosure requirements. >> okay. we have mr. john ton and mr. crow her as well to discuss this item. >> good morning supervisors johnson, president to london breed, i think we should bring sleeping bags on the 9th.

because that is the short term rental decision it should be a long night. thank you for support supporting, supervisor breed's, campaign, she cannot be here today, we're hoping to get these important reformses in place, in time for the 2015 election in november, thus you are stuck with me today -- update strengthen the ordinance or cfro -- our citizens are entitled to know the votes of their representatives -- they're not a streamline construct, they're the product of overlapping efforts, which differ and overlap with state laws, we're left with patch work

of regular lieulations, that can can under line the goal we seek to achieve. for example, on the ordinance, once must find five sections of the law, for advertisements, a neighborhood group, can be hired to file two different forms at two different times, to report a single campaign mailer this makes it harder for the average mailer what is being disclosed, and grass roots, candidates, don't bother getting involved. -- nor a law degree to understand them, the cfro should promote inclusion, not discourage groups from participating or running for office. supervisor, breed introduced this legislation, to make three high level changes, which i will briefly address first, it brings our laws in

compliance with court decisions, with local campaign contributions, that is struck down. the total contribution -- in 2014, the limits on contributions to pax, for the northern district of california in joins enforcement of 2007. no one likes mcuchan -- no one is going hunting with scalaia. it under mines the credibility of all our laws that is the issue, if circumstances change, let's hope they do these can be added back -- for third party groups that distribute adds or city elections, it requires spending a thousand dollars or more 90

days prior to an election to be disclosed within 24 hours -- sent by third party groups, if the communications cost over $1,000 or more which almost all of them do. thirdly, legislation has disclaimers, on print and ads, that help voters understand who is behind a message, we're setting clear standards for readable font size and understandable spoke b disclaimerer, in advertising, the changes, improve upon state law requirements by man dating larger font size on mass and smaller mailers -- disclosing top donors and require -- on the website. all together they will update simplify and

street signingthen, the cfro's, disclaimer requirements, and making compliance easier for grass roots candidates, and smaller neighborhood groups campaign finance reform is a delicate issue -- understands that. she has not always been met half way, i would like to briefly address an article, by larry bush from 48 hills yesterday -- about election communications, nonprofit mailers, call disclaimers, and pack filings, i will let jesse minority the executive director why those claims, are misleading to untrue. two months ago, we would have been happy to work with mr. bush and his concerns yet in two months to my knowledge, has not heard a peep

from him, until this article ran yesterday. claims about swastikas, sell paper, but won't improve the dialogue -- the legislation before you can, that's why the ethics commission passed this unanimously in january. i want to thank the commission on john st. staff and mr. minority. are both here today. i want to thank you again for your consideration. >> than thank you, we can go onto mr. minority the legislative process takes different forms and things come in at the last minute that happens there are also things that are discussed outside city hall on blogs or on posts in the media that we can take in consideration that could back certain types of changes we

might make to legislation or not. but that is often static, that is in the air. i do, i have seen amendments brought forward, possibly from mr. bush that i think makes some sense, but i want to consider those, i will hear from mr. minority next and we will have a discussion about them. >> sorry, i think president breed is happy to participate in that conversation she and i are uncomfortable with claims in the media, and she or i are doing anything to propagate swastikas, in the city, particularly as a gay man, i take particular offense >> i don't know what article you are referring to it seems like a hyper bollic thing that strikes up controversy, that doesn't change legislation, i'm sorry that is the discourse that

is out there, despite what we want to do to our campaign and finance laws. >> thank you mr. president >> mr. minority? >> thank you chair avalos supervisor, tang. thank you very much and thank you to connor for that overview we're going to overlap a little bit in terms of the main points. i did prepare a power point which should be made available. and certainly as i go forward, if there are questions along the way, feel free to step in and ask. my my name is jesse minority, the deputy director of the ethics commission. here to talk about a lot of very technical changes to the city's campaign finance reform ordinance otherwise known as

ctro these are passed unanimously, by the ethics, commission in january and february. the overall goals of these changes are to bring cfro up to date with legal changeses, that have happened within the passed 5-10 years. also to provide for better disclosure in terms of third party reporting, reporting by groups which includes outside grouping, including small grass roots organizations. and making that disclosure clear to the public. as connor indicated the rules in the city are overlapping, and the result of many years of rules on top of rules, what we thought we would do working with president breed's office is supplement what is already very robust state law requirements

for reporting and disclaimers, so those are the three main goals, we had going forward again, these all occur within three major irk -- issues one is with respect to on the bobbings here in the city struck down or not enforced or likely struck down given the supreme court rules, the the other is to consolidate, and streamline these rules, and standardize these disclaimer requirements these are the paid for by requirements for mailers that we see every political season. i'm going to go through each of the three areas separately, we will stop at the end of each one, and certainly answer any questions. the first is simplily the contribution limits, there is two types, one

is the agogregate limit to call candidates, running in the election there is a supreme court decision, mcuchen, versus fec, it's clear what we have in the city would likely be struck down as well so the ethics commission last year had suspended enforcement for that reason of that aggregate limit. back in 2007, there say $500 limit to stand allow pacs that make stand alones for candidates, that was joined by the u.s. district court back in 2007. the city is no longer enforcing that. so this is simply a clean up to get them off the books and this

is pursuant to the direction of the ethics commission itself >> thank you. can you go deeper and explain what a stand alone pac is. in the past i thought we had regulation, you cannot exceed $500 support to candidates, but i have seen pacs where large amounts of money have been put into, what is the stand alone pacs before or against a candidate >> i think you are referring to the same thing a pac is really just a bank account, a group of people get together open up a bank account, and ask for money for political purposes, as a candidate, you do that third party, who are not candidates who want to be involved in the political process, can do that. it can be anyone from the

chamber of commerce to a maul neighborhood group, this ruling and the subsequent rulings, have said, there is no coordination with a candidate. you cannot limit the amount of contributions, into that pac, if they're making expenditures saying, vote for or against >> so we have had a limit of $500? >> there had been correctly, the then the court said you cocannot enforce it it is unconstitutional >> that is citizens, united or mccuchn >> prior, this is 2007. >> that's why we see hundreds or thousands of dollars that go into pacs for or against recent candidates in elections? >> not this particular rules,

>> can i jump in? the $500 limit was adopted by the voters in 2000. and in 2006, a couple of independent committees the committee on jobs in boma, individual pacs sued saying this violates the constitution. we lost that case in the district court. as a result of the 9th sirt court decisions, we agreed not to enforce our $500 limit any more. a few years later, the supreme court adopted citizens united which put a nail in the coffin on it. >> we're conforming our campaign finance language with the courts told us we have to do? >> that is right. i think we have included this delusion

delete and other ordinanced >> thank you. supervisor tang? >> you asked the questions i got it answer. thank you. >> thank you. so the second major group is reporting by the third party groups participating in elections any where from the small grass roots group, up to the larger pac. sort of the main gist of what we tried to do with this this has to do with candidate elections, what we're trying to do is consolidate, and streamline requirements, which i will show on the next slide. and really essentially, basically, adopt the state law requirement, which is very robust. and that requirement is 24-hour

reporting, within 24 hours from anyone spending $1,000, for or against a candidate, before an election, and having copies of whatever is reported filed with the ethics commission so people can review that. just to tell you a little bit a lot of folks, may be familiar with this, what we're talking about in the types of expenditures and cfro breaks it down into four general groups, one is independent expenditures and those are things where they say "vote for candidate x, vote against candidate y", that is most election mailing. then there is something called election year communications which many years ago, people get around reporting, by not saying vote for, vote against, they would say "call supervisor allen, and tell him or her their idea --" it's just awful. that

is generally, what election communications is designed to get, it's also designed to get ballot measure ad, where a candidate, is prominently features that is the second. i want to pause here, to jump on connor's point earlier, some of the allegations in this article about election year communication, one is that election communication, has to come from a pac or committee. that is just untrue. in fact the whole point of an election year communication, is someone that wouldn't otherwise be disclosing, would be a pack, i'm not sure where that came from that is one point -- >> i'm not quite understanding. i do recall the history behind swastika in the mail that came

in the 2004 election when supervisor jer ard sandival came in the mail. i received one at my house at that time there was a swastika there was no reference to who put that out, but it turns out there was a link of that going to the fisher family whatever his name from the gap ceo, was behind paying for that. there wasn't reference to that. there was a need to actually have some disclosure requirements, so we can understand who is paying for this very offensive piece of mail. and i recall at the time when that came out, a lot of people were concerned that this was out in our mailboxes, this

came to a lot of people's mailboxes, and people were upset, not just the candidate, i am close with, but the community. this is the level of discourse that our election year communications, had come to. so i did see there say need to make sure we can prevent that from happening. so i'm not sure whether -- there was no pac discussed, we wanted to make sure there was linkage whoever was doing this to reporter requirements. >> yeah. i think we all agree. that's correct. that's the whole point of election nary communication is that if you don't normally trigger what would qualify you as a pac, but you send out something with a swa ti ka on it or vote for or against, if you send it within 90 days of election you spend 1,000 bucks, you have to report. that's a good requirement, we

want to keep that >> we're in agreement on that >> yes, definitely. the other point, with respect to communications, is there was an exemption put in there, after hearing from the regulated community, and interested persons, about 501 c 3's basically, little invitations, they will send out for fundraisers, if one of you guys are a candidate, rather would appear as somebody who speaks at the event if it's 500 or more, it's sent out 90 days of an election, and a thousand bucks is spent on those, that would be an electionary communication --

so we felt comfortable, a card in the mail for a fund raising event, would not trigger the concerns of election attempting to influence an election if the 501 c three did that they would be at risk of their 501 c three status. >> i actually don't agree with that. i have actually seen where people are running for public office and people are given awards by an organization or a nonprofit or public speaking, there is no mention whatsoever they are a candidate running for office. and yet, it's clear from

people attending, this person is running for office. irs isn't going to dpo know that there is no need to report it the nonprofit can say, the person running for office is doing that separately from what their concerns are, and they cannot fit with any trouble with the irs. they haven't engaged in electionarying. i can see the effects of a mailer has, with a photo of the candidate, for a nonprofit organization can bring that person's name, and face to the attention of people voting, or people attending the event, can have an influence over that person's election campaign. soy would like to think we can keep -- not have the exemption for nonprofits because i do feel it does kind of play that role it's only a small part of what this

legislation is about. we should error on the side of not allowing there to be no disclosure when there is possible promotion of a person running for office in a nonprofit event and nonadvertising event >> i agree this is a small issue to the general structure of this. i will just say, as a general matter i have worked with a lot of nonprofits in the private sector they stay away from candidate activity. some mistakes >> a lot do, and a lot don't >> they're at risk of losing their c three status i wouldn't want to be them >> one question on that topic, i want to clarify, a lot of times, we get asked to host an

honorary, in an event, with supervisors, as a group with that. so those examples and situations i see it's fine to exempt the nonprofit, if there is other cases, that supervisor avalos is referring to that might be difficult too, but it's hard to enforce in different situations >> it's true. there have been wild claims of full page ads for fundraisers which is not at all intended by this, and certainly to the extent there is ambiguity about that they're narrow in terms of regulations, we're talking about cards you send out in the mail, saying come to our fundraiser: you are right, that would trigger the election communication rules, not only would a report have to be filed, but on the invitation, if you you adopt the rest of our rules

please the ethic disclosures, >> the scenario, that comes up with nonprofits let's see if someone sees something, bla tent and makes a complaint to the ethics, commission, is that another rout for something that is egregious then? >> yes these are charities, 501 c 4's, that are unions trade associations those would not be exempt, those can participate in candidate elections, they do. we're talking about charities, where you make a as a tax deduction, you cannot do that as a 501 c four or trade or union for that matter. would you like more explanation on that

>> no i still don't think i agree with it. >> okay, member communication, are members, communications, with shareholders of an organization, this includes union members, employees of a corporation, this is for advocating, for or against election or defeat of a candidate, the final thing is persuasion polls, these are push polls, that is the shorthand these are are defined of surveys, telephone surveys 30 days prior to an election where it seems, the various criteria, can be confusing, the point of the poll is not so much to gain information but to impact the election to sort of implicitly say, vote for or against

somebody. so that is sort of the four. so here are the current requirements >> supervisor tang? >> sure >> i don't know if they do persuasion polls online, would that count as part of this? >> no only telephone >> okay. >> so here are the current reporting requirements you can say see that we have a lot, the first one i would like to highlight, this say state rule within 90 days, prior to an election, that you vote for or against somebody, you spend 1,000 bucks, per candidate, you have to report within 24 hours to the ethics commission this is a relatively new rile in 2013, require to that it was 16 days prior to the election now prior to the entire 90 day

period, which brings you back to the beginning of august which is when most of the campaign activity with candidates happens after labor day, you have to, if you spend a thousand bucks or more for a candidate, you have to file. this is in addition to the local requirements we have mass mailing requirements, if you spend a thousand bucks a mass mailer you have to file 16 days before the election election communications again, a lot of boll lot measures triggered this unknowingly, they get caught in this all the time. a thousand bucks, within 48 hours that means when a candidate is listed as endorsing a particular measure even if there