is the law in all states and cities. whereas the federal reserve act of 1913 was not properly ratified by the congress in 1913, whereas the privately owned federal reserve has no written contract with sufficient legal consideration, plus the national currency supply. whereas the money velocity, pieces of money in circulation has dropped approximately 50% since 2008, declaring a public safety emergency. whereas the federal reserve bank central dictates for present-day homelessness created asset inflation which has produced the need to access interest-free currency to solve the problems of this health hazard and protect the general

population. [inaudible] >> president yee: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. >> president yee: next speaker. are we done with speakers, sir? excuse me. are you speaking, sir? >> well in light and in part of the reasoned alleged occurrence and unfortunate incidents at laguna honda hospital and legislation to help seniors remain in their own homes and help mentally ill residents in group homes where there's the benefit of a ready make social environment and peer group, i

applaud you. some of you know i provided security on a psychiatric ward for 30 days a couple of decades ago. one evening, a lone psychiatric nurse asked i assist her placing a patient in a five-point restraint. at no time was he saw for a mental health orientation. i reminded her the patient's

book of rights, told her to stop frightening him, and bitterly returned to her desk. along another vain, you may be aware of the fact that billions of dollars in penalties have been paid in settlements in recent years by major pharmaceutical companies who have allegedly been targeting seniors in nursing homes, paying kickbacks to doctors, manufacturing powerful hypnotics to treat minor illnesses such as confusion -- >> president yee: okay. any other body want to speak? if -- seeing none, then public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> president yee: madam clerk, let's go and call for adoption without committee agenda item 58 through 65.

>> clerk: items 58 through 65 were introduced for adoption without reference to committee. a unanimous vote is required for resolution s on first reading. alternatively, any member may require a resolution to go to committee. >> president yee: okay. would any colleagues like to sever any item? supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i'd like to sever item 62. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: items 58 and 59, please. >> president yee: so madam clerk, let's take item 60, 61.

>> clerk: 63, 64, and 65. >> president yee: okay. >> clerk: okay. >> president yee: colleagues, can we take these items, same house, same call? without objection, the resolutions are adopted, and the resolutions are approved unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 58. >> clerk: item 58 is a resolution to oppose california state assembly bill 68 authored by california assembly member phil ting. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee, colleagues. as i said, this has been on the agenda the last three meetings. i don't like this lightly. assembly member ting is a

former colleague and friend. i was a little bit ahead of my time in 2002 when i introduced our first a.d.u. law in san francisco 17 years ago. i did not tell you how delighted i am that we're all falling all over each other, whether it's the mayor's executive orders or what's been done by supervisors chiu and wiener and my predecessor, christiansen, supervisor mar who's working with planning. many members of this board, we are all over it. as a matter of fact, we have been the example to the state of california and many municipalities have copied us, and now the state legislative is falling all over itself to

repeat. item 58 was based on a.d.u.s. >> i am truly for assembly bill 68 as it relates to jurisdictions that do not have robust controls, that do not have a.d.u. control schemes, god bless. in san francisco, if out of here 1 -- our 120,000 single-family homes, if 5% did it, we'd have 30,000 low-income

homes. my office continues to work with assembly member ting. i think our office has disseminated a fact sheet to all offices in this building with respect to three outstanding amendments, but i think given the late part of the session in sacramento, it is important for san francisco to go on record saying we're only going to support this bill if these amendments are made. i would like to thank the members of the public from the housing committee and the coalition on community housing, and i hope it meets your approval. i have offered a number of amendments that are not substantive in nature. they are all items have i spoken to in this speech and

specifically, ab 68 should be amended to allow san francisco to apply waivable standards to a.d.u.s to ensure rent control and san francisco's vigorous rent control protections remain feasible. >> president yee: there's been a motion and seconded by supervisor ronen. and without objection, that is passed. so can we take this item as amended, same house, same call? seeing so, then this resolution passes. where am i at? number 69 -- >> clerk: number 59, mr. president. >> president yee: number 59.

[agenda item read]. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, colleagues, for the one-week continuance. in the intervening week, i've had the pleasure of being regaled with the land made island but not the man made island that is treasure island. they may well apply to besh ab -- yerba buena island, but it clearly does not apply to treasure island, and i want to thank our county surveyor for walking me through that relatively obvious piece of history, so i have no questions, and i will support this matter. >> president yee: okay. can we take this same house,

same call? then this motion passes unanimously. madam clerk, item number 62. >> clerk: item 62, resolution to support california state assembly bill number 5, authored by assembly member lorena gonzales to codify the california supreme court's decision in dynamo versus lodge that a person is an employee in terms of wages and benefits. >> president yee: supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, press -- president yee. thank you, again, supervisor peskin for your tireless and

successful efforts, and a growing number of san franciscans are working for big corporations with 2.9% of san francisco corporations receiving a salary from an on-line platform. uber drivers are in the 10% of all wage and salaried workers nationwide at nearly $6 below minimum wage in san francisco. because these businesses classify workers independent contractors rather than employees, they leave them without health insurance coverage, without social security to support them in retirement, without any of the fundamental protections that have been in place more than half a century.

late last month, supervisor mar and i held a hearing at the public safety and neighborhood services committee on the issue of employee classification in the gig economy. dozens of gig workers came out to share their stories about their struggles to make ends meet without a living minimum wage, health care access, or any of the employee benefits they would be subject to if they were employees. ab 5 would codify a 2018 california supreme court decision that resets the past for employment status to establish a presumption that workers are employees. it comes as no surprise that not all big corporations are in

support. indeed, yesterday's l.a. times reported that a coalition funded by the california chamber of commerce paid uber and lyft drivers up to $100 to protest before a big senate rally last week. the employees overpower workers to subvert workers' protection is not new, but it is certainly not consistent with san francisco values. i believe it's important that san francisco stand in solidarity with workers across the state and look forward to this board passing this resolution of support for ab 5 today. i want to thank my lead cosponsor, supervisor peskin and eight other sponsors for their support of this resolution and others, and i

want to again thank erin in my office and give a special shoutout to lee hepner in supervisor peskin's office, as well. >> president yee: all right. colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call? without objection, this item motion is adopt -- resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, can you read the memoriams? >> clerk: today's meeting will be adjourned in loving memory for the young leader dav davon hehn.

>> president yee: okay, colleagues, that brings us to the end of our agenda. madam clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business before us today. >> president yee: okay. we are adjourned. [gavel] >> my s.f. dove -- government t.v. moment was when i received a commendation award from supervisor chris daly. then we sang a duet in the board chamber. [singing]

>> happy anniversary san francisco government t.v. happy anniversary to you. happy anniversary san francisco government t.v. anniversary, anniversary, happy 25th anniversary to you. [♪]

>> chair ronen: mr. clerk, can you please read item number one. >> clerk: prior to that, i'd like to make an announcement. please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. documents referred to in presentations should be submitted to the clerk. item number 1 is a hearing to

propose the submitted ordinance -- to members of and candidates for the board of supervisors, the mayor, and candidates for mayor, the city attorney, and candidates for city attorney and the controlled committees of those officers and candidates. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. and i just wanted to note that we have quite a front row crowd in the audience. we have two former supervisors and a judge. we have former supervisor tom ammiano. we have the former chair of the

ethics commission, tom renne. i will turn this over to supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, chair, ronen, for allowing us to hold this informational hearing today, and i'm proud to be this sponsor on this dark money measure. it's earned the support of eight of my colleagues. i'm also proud to share that it has all been endorsed by a number of important organizations, including represent us, friends of ethics, the harvey milk lgbtq democratic club, sf league of conservation voters, san francisco berniecrats, san francisco tomorrow, district 11

democratic club, d-6 democratic club, and several former ethics commissioners. to work towards a more democratic and equitiable future, we must start at the root. if we want to ensure just policies, if we want to ensure just outcomes, we need a just system. those in public office are entrusted to represent the public, and yet the money that fuels our elections is in large part private and fuels our super p.a.c.s who funnel large amounts of dark money in an attempt to buy elections. my constituents experienced this in district 4 last year

when over $700,000 was donated by an organization called progress san francisco, and they tried to influence the mayor's office and other supervisors' races last year. this is why i've made electoral reforms one of my priorities in office. while we strive for racial, economic, and gender equality, we must remember that political equality is at the root and intersections of each of these struggles. the path to a fairer, more equitiable and just city is one through a stronger democracy, where neither the color of your skin nor the amount of money in your wallet determines your ability to be represented and heard. when we have enshrined in our

constitution the notion that all people are created equal, when corporations are determined to be people and people are not determined equal, in this fundamental inequality has real consequences in the policy of our city and our country. with political spending reaching record highs as trust in government reaches record lows, the issue of faith in our political institution is at a crisis point. there is little question of the cause of this disillusionment. when for profits donate to political causes, this is not a kind donation. this is an investment, and they expect returns on their investments, and these returns

are real and draw the line between political inequities and racial and economic disparities. we are caught in a vicious cycle in which the rich pour money into election, secure political power and write rules that keep themselves wealthy and the rest of us struggling to get ahead. this is a cycle that builds upon itself in a dangerous feedback loop, and it's a cycle that freezes out people of color and entrenches existing hierarchies in centuries of race-based oppression. solving it is a remaining issue of the civil and voting rights movement. the study goes on to say that the government is sharply more responsive to the preferences of the wealthy than those to the average voter. in role of case policy whe

including expansion of incarceration, and our stagnant national minimum wage. so the question we must ask ourselves is not the issues -- is not the issues at hand, but what we can do about them. corporate contributions, pay-to-play politics, and dark money contributions are all places that bear no place in our democracy and have real consequences. the sun light on dark money initiative addresses all three of these issues. first, it will ban all corporate contributions to many committees. many are banned under existing law, but there are exceptions depending how businesses are incorporated. but eliminating these loopholes, we can take a clear stand against the appearance and instances of corruption.

second, it will ban pay-to-play donations from real estate developers from donating to candidates for elected offices that could play a role in improving those matters. finally, sun light on dark money will create the strongest dark money disclosure law in the nation. last year, the supervisor races were the most expensive in recent history. the race for mayor was the most expensive in recent history. too often, independent expenditure committees are a local version of super p.a.c.s are funded by state-level committees with nice sounding names like progress san francisco. sun light on dark money would change this by requiring i.e.c.s to include disclaimers

on political ads listing their top donors and the amount of their donation, and if one of those donors is another committee, the top donors to that committee. citizens united decided these donations are free speech. while we can't stop this money, we can bring it out of the dark. even in authoring the majority opinion in citizens united versus f.e.c., supreme court justice kennedy stressed the value of strong disclosure laws, writing, "prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elects officials are in the pockets of

so-called money interests." . voters deserve to know who's trying to buy their vote. the public deserves to know that our democracy is not for sale, our politics are not for sale, and our city is not for sale. before inviting up our presenters, i want to note that in addition to the report and supreme court decision i referenced, i've also introduced the following into the record for this hearing. number one, a civil grand jury report from 2013, requesting the city should require resolutions to require disclosure you ares and that the ethics commission should look again at the regulations from proposition j. in 2000, proposition j was placed on the ballot by citizen

initiative and passed by the voters of san francisco in a landslide. it regulated behavior of public officials, barring them from receiving a personal -- a personal or campaign advantage from anyone who gained a public benefit by action of the public official. this was later repealed by proposition e in 2003, which sought to recodify conflict of interest laws out of the charter, amending some of them and making nonvoter amendments possible in the future, though the repeal of proposition j's regulations went undisclosed. if passed, sun light on dark money will enact the civil grand jury recommendations. number two, a report from the brennan center of the city's 2013 effort to ban pay-to-play contributions from real estate developers which mirrors some

of the language in this charter and which never went into effect. and number three, a study entitled the appearance and reality of quid pro quo corruption and empirical corruption, ensuring that contemporary politics. to be sure, while real instances of corruption exist and will be spoken on further in this hearing, addressing the potential appearance of corruption is cause enough to justify the provisions of this initiative. now i'd like to welcome up former chair of the ethics commission and coauthor of this

measure, peter keen. >> thank you, mr. chair. supervisors, i'd like to commend you for putting forth this measure. it's a measure that's really desperately needed in our democracy, in any democracy. there's a big vacuum. supervisor mar, you mentioned citizens united. one of the things i did in my former life, i was a constitutional law professor for many year, and looking at what the supreme court of the united states did in citizens united, i can equate it with a couple of other rulings which i think citizens united will have a similar history. pre plessy versus ferguson, and the ruling in precivil war, saying that black people are not citizens, those were two great mistakes that the supreme court of the united states made, the

two greatest mistakes. the third one in my opinion is citizens united in terms of the effect upon democracy. and as some point we, as our history has shown, comes together as a democracy and says this is simply not right. this goes against the whole framework of democracy. and there will come a day -- and i'm no profphet, but the supreme court will confine citizens united to the same file that did dredd scott and plessy. as you mentioned, supervisor mar, one big allowance that we

can still take care of in terms of people being sure that government is not totally bought, and that is disclosure, that even though money can be given by anyone, the people that are giving it, the u.s. supreme court has said unanimously all along, disclosure of who these people are is something that's fine. it does not fall or fly in the face of the first amendment or anything else, and even the other courts that have been procitizens united. well, we don't have disclosure. we have minimal disclosure. disclosure is virtually nonexistent. i've been watching the political process in san francisco for about the last 50 years in various things as chief assistant public defender, dean of a law school, and members of two commissions, ethics commission and police commission.

and one of the things that i see, and particularly i saw it with great vividness on the ethics commission -- i think senator kopp will echo me on this, when things would come to the ethics commission, these people are behind these measures and it's not disclosed anywhere, and there wasn't a darn thing we could do about it. we tried, senator kopp and paul renne and i tried for a year and a half to get a measure like this through the ethics commission. and i was the chair, and i had two very well known individuals, paul renne and senator kopp, and we thought we had it through. for the ethics commission to put something through, it requires four votes. we thought we not only had four

votes, but we thought we had the four votes. we had the assurance of the fourth vote. and then, on the day of the vote, it was just the three of us. me, commissioner renne, and senator kopp. and it was just a blunder bust -- i'm not an impulsive guy, but when i announced the vote, saying the measure fails, these four votes, measure fails by three -- i said the measure fails, i resign, and i walked away. i'm not someone who is dramatic for the sake of being dramatic. my family will tell you i'm a rather dull guy. but when i did that, after i did that, john gollinger and tom ammiano and i said let's go as directly as we can to the voters. the voters want this, because

they've been frustrated on so m many levels. and you, supervisors, have put it on the ballot for november. and i, someone who was not a pr -- who is not a prophet, it will win overwhelmingly. so i want to thank you very much. i want to add one other person to the long list of individuals who you indicate thd that have endorsed it. i think former mayor art agnos should get noticed. he's backing it, as are many people as we go along. thank you very much for this measure that you made. you have made a wonderful service to democracy by doing it. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, peter. any questions? thank you. now, i'd like to welcome up election law teacher and attorney john gollinger.

>> good morning, supervisors. chair ronen. i'm john gollinger. i actually cut my teeth on these issues as a community organizer. i spent four years being an attorney for good government and environmental issues. i learned the role of politics, and i was involved in a 1996 statewide ballot measure on these very issues. i will just add, my only other credential, i've been in this city a couple of decades working in and around these issues in many capacities, but i decided to go back to school and earn my law degree about a decade ago at golden gate, and was fortunate enough to have peter keen as my law professor, and now, as i said, i teach election law there. i want to drill down on the

specifics of the measure. first, i also just want to mention by way of process. i am delighted that i think this measure will be a very good indication of how the process can work in multiple ways to get things done. as was mentioned, there was a log jam in the city hall version of how to get things done, so we're going to the ballot. but i will mention as peter said, tom ammiano, he, and i sat down last summer. we started it as an initiative petition, and some, if not all three of you signed it, and then we collected a couple thousand signatures, and then, there was an election, and we were delighted to have supervisor mar and walton support it. i

i want to drill down through the first three sections of the measure, and i'll give you the legal justification for the third. the first component of the measure as i'll describe it is closing the corporate money loophole. what the initiative does is amend section 1114 of the campaign government finance code by simply adding to the definition of corporation two other versions of corporation that have emerged since the original corporate ban was adopted. so originally, the board of supervisors adopted a flat ban on corporations donations for elected office. for over a century on the federal level, the federal government has banned direct corporate contributions to candidates for federal office. what's occurred in recent years in particular is that other forms of corporate entities have emerged really having

nothing to do with campaign reform law but specifically limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships, known as l.l.c.s or l.l.p.s. these have become common ways of doing business for a myriad of small businesses, law firms, etc. so what happened on the local start -- this started about a decade ago, i suspect crafty corporation lawyers advised their clients they could do an end run around the corporate donation ban by doing that. i said, isn't that the same thing, and they said you've got to change the law. i think that's pretty straightforward, so closing that contribution loophole. second transparency, and this has been mentioned by presser

keen and supervisor mar. but i want to give you a couple of conditions of what the dark money disclosure does. it amends section 1.61 of the government and campaign finances code. this is specifically not about candidate committee disclosure. our laws relate to the offices you and your competitors ran for were pretty good. people know when shaman walton, gordon mar, hillary ronen, run an ad, you have to put at it paid for by you. there are very few ways you could hide that or minimize that from voters. the same is not true for expenditures, also known as super p.a.c.s, and evdonation committees.

locally, san francisco has the glorious notion of being the worst local proprietor, if you will, of dark money, invented expenditure money in our local politics. so if you feel like there's tons of dark money in our politics, you're right. it's occurring elsewhere, but san francisco is off the charts in both volume and common frequency. as i've said, a few committee have made this common practice. in last november's elections, in both district 4 and district 6, progress san francisco spent more money on the campaign than the actual candidates, which is only the second time that's ever happened. so what we're really doing here is going after what voters know. and as was said, the supreme court within the bounds of citizens united said transparency and disclosure, fine. i have a few examples.

this was a district 6 mailer, and the video at the bottom of an internet mailer ad, paid for by a committee, clean and sunset. major funding by progress san francisco. and the district 6 version said paid for by san franciscans for change, major funding by progress san francisco. i think all of us in this room know who are behind that committee, but most regular people would have no reason to know. two big things. number one, it will require the dollar amount of the donors to be listed, so that voters get more than a name and an actual piece of data that they can use to say -- to ask if they wish, who's really behind this and what's their agenda. and more importantly, it pierces the shell of fake name committees like that by requiring that progress san

francisco in this example, the top two donors to that committee would also have to be listed, and the amount of money they gave to that committee. in addition, the font will have to be bigger and some other cleanup things that make it easier for voters to know. again, we're trying to give voters information and ensuring they really know who's behind the shell committee and how much they gave. only other thing i'll say on that component and i'll get to the last one is some may ask, well, aren't the clever election lawyers going to find some other way to hide, and i'm sure they will. and to that i would say, we're going to do that the same way you would eat an elephant, one bite at a time. and i think this will become the strongest in the country and a model for other cities. so at the end, i want to submit some materials, and supervisor mar has the same if you wish to

share, is the pay-to-play division, which prohibits not just the developer, which is already prohibited, but the top executives associated with that developer from giving to any city official running for the board of supervisors, mayor, or city attorney or sitting in those offices for the entire time that the measure is pending or for 12 months it's approved or after it's done. we tried to narrowly craft it, so we're talking about big projects, not someone renovating their house. big developments, $5 million or more. what i submitted for the record in terms of the basis for this is a series of articles. you all are well familiar with the f.b.i. sting on a couple of former city officials and employees, one of whom said we pay to play in san francisco.

we're the best in the biz to an f.b.i. informant who posed as a developer, what we're trying to prevent, and a series of related documents. i would ask the clerk, if you would, to pass around these three -- i gave you a copy for the record, but give it to the supervisors. so -- and i've come across this over the years, and then, over the weekend -- this is what i do with my weekend, i went and downloaded and organized for presentation from the ethics commission -- there's one specific developer who stands out i think it's a really good flash bad example about how they've done an end run around the corporate ban with a myriad of city officials at city hall. t.m.g. officials is a big office developer. they've been one of the lead developers at 88 bluxome.

so for the last 13 years, t.m.g., top executives of t.m.g., the same mostly dozen -- ten to 12 people have given on the same day, in the same amount, to the same person, campaign contributions to people running for mayor, supervisor, city attorney. and i've got, what, 11 pages of this because it started in 2006, and the last data i have it for this last he -- is for this last election. this is about the interest, this is not about the politicians. there are other laws and other things, but certainly about the developer's attempt to curry favor and make it look like their project should get approved, and they should have the inside track. so t.m.g. partners in the last dozen years, their executives gave 327 contributions to 37

campaigns totaling over $199,000. this would ensure that t.m.g. and their executives can't give money, that the projects are approved on their merits and not based on money. so with that, i have given you my testimony on the three components of the initiatives. again, i really agree, i really encourage everyone to read it for themselves, and really thank your support for the measure. >> supervisor mar: thank you, peter, and for all of your work and these important issues protecting our democracy for so many years. i think that concludes the presentation. >> chair ronen: fantastic. and if supervisor walton has no comments, we'll open it up for public comment. please come forward. >> vice chair kopp: good

morning, members of the committee. i'm quentin kopp, a former member of the board of supervisors, and i'd like to divide my remarks in procedural and substantive categories. this has been a long, long process which began in san francisco in 1973. the trivia question before the committee this morning is what is the first municipality in california to adopt an ordinance to control campaign contributions and expenditures. it's not san francisco. we were second. san diego was first. after san diego adopted an ordinance, i telephoned the city attorney, obtained a copy of it, introduced it in 1973,

and it was enacted -- my memory fails as to whether it was unanimously enacted by the board of supervisors, and it had both spending and donation limits in it. and those spending limits remained in effect until one of the cases john gollinger referred to, buckley versus vallejo was decided by the united states supreme court which held that the first amendment was violated by a spending limitation. and so american government, local, state, and national, has been struggling ever since to control a campaign's spending through laws addressing --

[inaudible] >> chair ronen: judge kopp, can you continue with the point that you're making, please. >> oh, did you have a time limit on testimony? >> chair ronen: i wanted to hear both. >> all rig . >> vice chair kopp: all right. let me see how fast i can say i wa want -- i was appointed to the commission by the board of supervisors until i resigned out of a feeling of futility. and i know that peter keen isn't dramatic in his presentations or public pronouncements, but he was understandably dramatic, and if he isn't dramatic enough, i know my friend, mr. ammiano

will be dramatic because that was once his profession. and we should have done this two years ago in the ethics commission of the city and county of san francisco. and the record which mr. gollinger amassed is absolutely persuasive to anybody who doubts what happens underneath the spotlights and out of the public sunshine, and i am pleased that the board of supervisors has adopted what otherwise would have cost much time, money, and effort to put before voters, a. and i know this is just informational, but i believe it will be successful with a

combined effort of all those who believe in trying to present voters with honest choices of people with integrity who are not the minions of vested wealthy developers or other professions in san francisco. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. assembly member ammiano, would you like to speak? >> drama queen. good morning. if you don't mind, mr. young, i just wanted to say hi, it's been a long, long time, and it's nice to see you. i think the eloquence that you've heard today, as an elected, i think you all know you get that swearing in

ceremony, and you're just so happy, and we're going to take on the world. and then, the kind of offers that come in because you won -- not because they necessarily agree with you when you were running are somewhat astounding. when i was first elected, i was approached by an entity who said they might be able to raise $25,000 for me. i don't want to embarrass anybody, but i'll give you its initials, which is pg&e. needless to say, stopped in the hole by a prominent member of the community, mentioned his name, and presented me with an envelope of cash. this is how blatant it was. and i think the senator can relate to sacramento, things are bad here. in sacramento, they are amazingly tricky, and there's

so much stealth that goes on. i was walking to work one day and was approached by a lobbyist. wanted to know if i wanted to stop at starbucks. and i said no, and she said here, here's a check. and i said no. and she was actually hurt because it's been so inured into the system, and in the system, it's things that are wrong. so i'm very happy to have the sponsorship and i thank you, supervisor mar, for your leadership, and i look forward to a victory. and just one kind of caveat, a spoiler, but i can't help as a citizen -- [inaudible] >> chair ronen: thank you so

much. mr. bush? >> thank you very much. i'm larry bush. i'm a member of friends of ethics. in 2016 and 2018, both times, we paid for professional polling to find out what the public sentiment was on contributions coming from developers and those with land use issues, and i've provided you copies with that, but it was shown that 70% of the people felt we needed to go further than we had. with charlie marstellar, we did a review of lobbying in san francisco city hall and found that 90% of the lobbying is about development, but our law only addresses contracts, not developers per se. this will close one of those loopholes. there's been a lot of talk about what examples we have, and i would point your

attention to an article i provided from san francisco public press, which was about allies of the mayor who were called in by the mayor and his top aides, as well as some officials from the board of supervisors and told that their applications for development hinged on whether or not they gave contributions. it was very explicit, and there was a billionaire who was present who said if you don't want to give directly, i will give money in your name to someone so that it will still be covered and the money will still be raised. it was then raised by commissioner kopp for investigation by the ethics commission, and while there was some interviews that took place from the city attorney's office, the city attorney's office decided not to seek subpoenas and put anybody under oath about what had happened,