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 donation, and write it off 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 name thatis that big, it triggers, reporting -- and primarily designed to track

spending, with respect to the expenditure limits with the board of supervisors and the mayor. and persuasion polls there is no monetary threshold, you send it out, you have 48 hours to report. >> because persuasion polls, one of the criterias that you are reaching out to a large number of people over 1,000 people, so there is going to be a fee for that, and they're all covered. >> yeah, that's right. again, this doesn't include all of the other reports, most of these pacs are filing which is midyear, end of year report. there are two types of preelection reports files, one in san francisco, one in whatever is the home jurisdiction. and a noncoordinating, verification saying i'm not coordinating with the candidate, there are a lot of forms for example, somebody

who sends out one mass mailer could trigger basically -- basically, there could be five reports that one mailer is reported on. at least they would have to consider five reports, that is the mass mailing the $5,000 expenditures, the 4,006 expenditureses, and -- report all saying the same thing, what we thought. the 90 day standard is the standard to go for. it's state law, it's very robust. and what we thought is that -- you can see we have a third party disclosure form, by the way for all of the local requirement, which the nettics, commission staff staff simplified it but

it's eight pages long we basically consolidate the requirements streamline and make it one standard, so all of these groups that are engaging in this activity know generally what the standard is when they have to report i will say, generally, i will go back a little bit. these reporting requirements, at the ethics commission, they're so confusing, but people who have the money they pay people to do compliance, and they comply. the problem that we see all the time is the smaller groups the groups who you want to hear from, who don't have the time or the money to understand how to comply and they mess up all the time. so we thought, we have this one standard within 90 days of election if it's an ie saying vote for or against, it's an election year communication, you spend a thousand bucks for a candidate, within 24 hours, you

have file a form with us file a copy. very straightforward. now, there are a couple other issues about this, we did keep a mass mailing, reporting requirements, we kept that for -- candidates, to file the reports with us to help with enforcement, so we can see folks are complying, the contents of the electionary communication basically mirror the state mandated ie the 496, the same communication disclosure, is currently in cfro, this is one of the things lar ree referenced in his article, pacs, may not have to disclose certain things, or file certain reports, right now, if you are a stand alone pacs and you spend 500 bucks, prior to eexlex you have to file these reports, unlike

the state law, for an expenditure, this is for anything, what you see is pacs file reports, they file $500 to their treasurer services, or they pay $500 for administrative overhead we said, if it's just that administrative overhead and there is a definition in state law about that we won't require reporting, but anything else any contribution if there is any independent expenditure, if there is any transfer of funds, anything where it's going to influence the election we're going to retain that requirement. so that's kind of the big summary of this third party reporting, i don't know if you have any questions, so far -- not putting you to sleep too

much with this. so the last federal requirements are disclaimer requirements requirements, i started with this slide, page one of two, from the fppc you can't read it too well. the state has really robust state requirements they require these paid for by disclaimers on all -- basically every type of political communication, you can think of, including twitter, facebook all that sort of stuff. there is again page one of two, there are other handouts like that that the fppc puts out it requires statements like independent expenditures, it wasn't coordinated with a candidate, and we here in san francisco have our own requirements that again sort of happened over

time. but if you take the two together, it's very very confusing. i would know one of the things larry points out in his article, row bow calls wouldn't be colored, telephone calls are covered, not only are thoi covered by the fppc but they're covered by fcc fcc, has disclaimers, on all robo calls -- i'm sorry. the state of california, the ftb, has requirements as well these are heavily regulated in the city we have additional requirements on certain campaign communications, we asked in 14 point type same thing with electionary, mass mailing, there say disclaimer that is required in 14 point type, and persuasion polls also are, they have their

own disclaimer. this leadses to complex problems one as connor said these are found in five sections of cfro, anybody reading the law is going to be confused secondly there say lot of overlap, with what state law asks you to do there is conflict too. one example is our law says that if you send out an electionary communication, or complain, ie you have to put the disclaimer in 14 point type. that includes billboards that doesn't make any sense. youtube adds 14 point type, tv, what is 14 point type? we don't know. the state has it's own requirements, they have had on the books for a while, in the percentage of the height on

youtube ads, in terms of billboard height let's standardize it let's take what they have at the state law but then also improve upon that. how do we improve upon that for the ballot measure committees, we're talking about ballot measure commitments, and candidate ie's do what they say but do three extra things. if it's written and it's a mass smaller, smaller printed item don't do it in ten point font which is what the state requires do it in 12 point fond on the federal level, it seems like the right size. just to jump ahead it's hard to see here example a is what we have to do right now, which is big, here's the b, at the state level and c is sort of the

middle of what we're sort of proposing there. so then the other thing with ie's, and ballot measure committees, you have to disclose, the paid for disclaimer, your two top donors of 50,000 or more we lower that to 20,000, a lot of the committees, they get donations or contributions, of 49,000, 999 bucks, that kooems them out of that disclaimer there. we think the effect of this there will be more disclosure earlier, people will give the same amount, they might give 19999 in the beginning, but a few weeks later, they're going to have to give more money, it's not so much the people will change, but the disclosure will happen earlier >> in the top two where it says in terms of disclosing the top

two donors why is it not more than two? why is that standard? >> that's just what the state has. one of the things i did want to mention, there was something called a disclose act floated last year at the state level. they're talking about it. it's very speculative now, where they thought that it might possibly move to three. there is no language yet. again, it's speculative, if it did change to three, that would be a simple clean up, of course we want it to be three as well we basically say, follow what the state law does and augment it by doing these three things, and the third thing is refer to our website, they do this in la thought it was a good idea our it guy is wonderful, he puts up great info graphics, in terms

of spending and the reports are available online. so while people might see who the top donors are a trigger like this to go to the website -- >> to me that makes a lot of great sense i don't know if three is sufficient to have on the mailer, but certainly, with the website where the information can be gathered is a step forward. >> so then again this is sort of an example, you can't see it too well kind of going from big to medium size i guess i would say in terms of what a typical disclaimer would look like on a mass mailer disclaimer. so then we would also have disclaimer requirements for election year communications, and would basically be the same, it would be 12. point, it would be "paid

for by", and refer to the website, and 12 point font for anything written. same thing for candidates, we would require the paid for by reference to the website, and they would have to comply with state law, other than the 12 point type for things that are written and handed out. >> so just to be clear, for people who might be paying attention, you are going to have paid for by the name of -- committee >> that is correct >> in addition, they will be required to name the top two donors >> under state law, yes those will be ballot measure committees, then committees that are set up just to oppose, or support a candidate. that's what state law requires. yeah that's right. so thank you for your

patience and for going through all this. if there are any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> thank you supervisor tang? >> thank you. actually, i think i got most of my questions, answered, i do appreciate the ethics commission bringing forth changes, i know it's complicated, with city law state law requirements i have a campaign committee and still do, it's difficult to sort three, i think simplifying, is important so people will comply we hope. one of the things i had allegation when people are -- when people report to third party, is there a time frame, they have to post it online for

example, it's easy to find online they don't have to go down and file the files online -- any way i want to internally, if you have a deadline, where you post it publicly >> internally we try to get it as soon as we can. in the heat of the election season it's difficult. right now, it's not going up that is the intention this stuff would go up online, so people can see it. that is the whole point. actually it used to be -- well currently, have you to file two copies of some things, give us one copy we will upload it in pdf format and don't have to do anything with it. to answer your question there is nothing set in stone now, that is the general direction of where this ethics commission is going online disclosure for everything as soon as possible. >> i think that would be helpful for everyone. thanks >> thanks

>> thank you. we can go onto public comment. i don't have any cards, if people want to line up on this side where, this side where the doors are, that would be great. >> as continuing, of humanity of human souse, and contrast, of standing up for guidelines matters will be beneficial well being, in turning -- back to eternal security in focus, of being, [inaudible] embedding our laws and human souls, and mortality, of social benefits and weakening, or self for

perfection, those of killing pain like to cause, relationship -- >> if you want to. you did mention election, i think you got close to asemiblens of what this item is about i appreciate if you can keep your comments close to this. next speaker please >> i hope i didn't get the lined mixed up my name is stacy owens, i'm a campaign treasurer, i have been doing this for 16 years, i'm in favor of simplifying this i work with a lot of localities around the state, i got to say san francisco is the most difficult ordinance we work with, not in terms of the law we follow, and disclosure, i have been doing this for 16 years and say, okay, just making sure we need to file this we need to file