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 this and this type of communication to you, on this form and on this form and this deadline. there are state forms for this, the state has regulations, when you are doing expenditure, election year communication, all of these things have state rules, it would be nice to have it a standardized form if i can't figure it out, i'm concerned somebody who can't pay me can't pay that. you might be thinking saying, more disclosure, i get paid by the hour, but i'm very much for simplifying this. paperless finding, and simplifying this would go along with that, the forms you currently have are papers, we

need to fax to the ethics commission side. i think my time is almost up. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors any thaem is albony ryne district one resident i'm in favor, i'm a proponent of the proposed legislation, i would also like to name my association, i'm a member of the california political association. i'm a treasurer of the harvey milk lgbt club i'm not speaking on behalf of those organizations today, but i will say from my experiences, this kind of legislation and reform is very much welcome to the process of fair and equitable disclosure to the public i think the current format for

disclosing on multiple porms, the same information is con vel luted and not clear to the end user, i think simplifying by standardized forms, will make it more transparent to the end user, and is the appropriate type of reform to continue down the road of progress in terms of a more democratic process, and getting people involved in the political process. i have worked of course on low budget campaigns, including in my capacity with the the harvey milk, rgbt democratic club and certainly, i know con vel luting the process, limits clubs like this, and the involvement of nonorganized clubs, who have no legal expertise, or experience,

in professional accounting who cannot hire time teams of consultants to do the work for them. i think this type of reform is necessary. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> my name is larry bush i'm here on behalf friends of ethics taking the position asking this to be put over, with seven ethics commissioners -- investigate committee on ethics as well as the passed chapter chair for common cause, we have several points we felt were the reason to be put over we testified about this at the ethnics commission itself. the issue you raised about 501 c three nonprofits we understand the point about contribution cards, and so forth one

mentioned, among several. this deals with material 90 days, befr the election otherwise, you can do it any time of the year, and nothing is triggered. we think that a 90 day restriction black out period is reasonable. secondly we're asking for a deletion of the election communication, disclosure, which they're calling to have that deleted, we think it shouldn't be so we know who gets paid for noncommittee the issue of the swa city ka, was brought up, that was a specific incidence with supervisor sandival it's the this law they're now trying to appeal. >> thank you very much >> supervisor alia dulni, with

parks [inaudible]. i want to reiterate, with a sense of this say clean up bill, that is going to make it easier for other people who can't hire firms that have a lot of experience in this law, and navigating through these complex rules, so the smaller organizations can read the law themselves understand what they need to do to comply and not get caught up in an ethics investigation so fully support the proposed changeses, i think these are necessary and well intended clean ups, i strongly encourage you to pass along right now. if there are additional changes or disclosures, you can see, consider those at a separate time rather than slowing down this process, i would like to see these in effect for the upcoming election. thank you.

>> supervisor thank you for the opportunity to speak, my name is rob hoj, i have been working in campaign reporting for six years now, i strongly support these changes, but i want to highlight, not so many reasons, why they should be changed, but just to emphasize, just because you hear the term simplification, that we're taking away from the public's right to hear, or understand how their elections are being influenced rather i believe changing these rules to simplify them, to make them easier are going to encourage people to participate, they're going to encourage not only in more disclosure, but accurate disclosure, with the activities going on with elections and this information going to the ethics commission website, the san francisco public is going to have a better understand of what is going on in their elections right now trying to review the mixture of e filed and paper filed documents that are

uploaded, it does take a considerable amount of times, and you have to have a considerable understanding of what you are looking for, i think simplifying, creating a streamline is going to create greater transparency in san francisco elections, which i think all of us in politics in the public can benefit from greatly, i hope you will strongly consider these changes, thank you again for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> hello, supervisors, my name is hope johnson, i didn't come to speak on this item, after listening to people speak on this before, i will urge you to hold this over the committee until you have a full committee here if supervisor cohen thought this was pretty important. the ethics commission was not told by the court to

enforce this law, to be enacted, but they assumed, they they enforced it before they were told that, they made an agreement, even though the voters didn't make an agreement, this requires a bit of discussion and i would like to see a full committee here since it's something the voters enacted, we know campaign contributions are a huge issue on both sides of the aisle. thank you. very thank you very much. no further comments? actually, i do support creating greater standardzation, simplification of our campaign finance laws as a former grass roots candidates to get into public office, it was very mystifying fulfilling all of the -- to understand all of the different requirements moving forward for candidates so i

think simplification is important. i support the corpus of the legislation. i do have concerns about particular parts of it that i think didn't need to necessarily get changed as part of the whole effort around standardzation. it is unfortunate, we don't have the full contingency of the boards to engage in the discussion; the discussion of the amendments i would like to have. i also believe there was original legislation approved by voters, on top of that are lawyers that have been amended into campaign finance laws that called for simplification as well so the idea that as -- was saying, the vote voters have approved this is partly true, on top of what the vote rs had approved. i think it's important that voters who want us to make changes,

that would help streamline the process as much as possible while still safeguarding their right to know how our campaigns are financed. supervisor tang? >> i don't know if you want to close public comment first? >> yes, we will close public comment. supervisor tang? >> thank you. one question i did have for the city attorney given the public comment we heard last, in terms of the city moving forward suspended enforcement of certain rules, of certain court rulings, if you could repond to that that would be great. >> sure deputy city attorney john bib ner. there are two -- one is the supporting or opposing candidates, that we discussed earlier in the

meeting, two independent committee sued the city, challenging that particular provision, we lost that case in the trial court and ultimately, as a result of citizens united settled that case, and agreed not to enforce, that is a situation where a court told us you cannot do this, you cannot enforce this provision. the second piece mrs. johnson may have been referring to is the cumulative contribution that mr. minority described earlier, the rule that no individual can con tribe ut more than $500, for the seats in that election for all combined for all seats in a year. >> that is mccuchin >> yeches it doesn't address the san francisco, it addressed

an analogous law. to the ethics and commission, and the board, to enforce that law and the ethicics, commission concludes, on that and the mckuchun decision, is not to enforce that provision, and they haven't in years, since mckucha n this would remove that provision -- if the board decided not to remove, they will continue to not enforce it, unless there is a change at the supreme court level. >> thank you. so i actually -- if we were making the amendments to this legislation they're approved approved. we have to go back to ethics because of the full board, or there is dis