there was a better clipper integration i would love to see that in future pilot programs. thank you very much. >> any additional public comme comment? public comment is closed. that clipper integration was really a good idea. great to figure out if we can make that happen. >> i am happy to make a motion to approve. whatever our personal feelings are about scooters, they are working for some people. some of the commenters made a good point. it is our job to keep them safe on the streets. the best way to get them off the sidewalks is to make the streets safer and expand our network of bike and scooter lanes. whatever our personal feelings are about them that is our job to keep everybody safe on the streets. >> madam chair, before you approve -- >> i just want to respond to that. i do agree. i guess i come down on the underside of the question.

i don't think we have clipped the safety problem. as long as we haven't, i am not comfortable authorizing a move from a pilot program to a mainstream, no, how many ever we want to have approach. i think if we cannot assure safety, both for pedestrians on the sidewalk, and the users of these devices on the road. i think we have to go slow. >> i see your point, director heminger. mr. hyde, do you feel with the reporting that we get back from 311, and with the structure we have in place of what we expect to see from these scooter companies in terms of not blocking the sidewalk and being locked appropriately, people not riding on the sidewalk. if we were to come into a situation where as they expanded they get more numbers, and we

start seeing bad behavior, multiply, do you feel under this proposal you have the tools that you need to then ratchet down on the companies who are not meeting our standards? >> absolutely. we are issuing permits that are valid for no longer than one year. that is one thing to consider, these will have to be renewed on an annual basis. it's not like we are just handing over permits forever. acknowledging that the technology is constantly changing and this mobility space is rapidly evolving. in terms of whether or not we could potentially revoke permits. we definitely reserve the right to revoke permits if users are consistently not complying with laws, as well as if the companies are not complying with any of the terms and conditions of the permit. >> does that sort of help?

>> i am afraid not. i think it is hard to say, no after you said yes. yes -- this is a yes. it seems we are voting on today. i wish i had reviewed the material director eaken mentioned. maybe i need to get better educated about the subject, too. for now, unless i know more, i'm still on the go slow boat. >> if i could add, the information that director eaken mentioned has some safety as well. i think i share your skepticism about the as actually being positive, necessary form of mobility. they are replacing walking trips.

it was director rubke pointing out we doing a lot of measurement of collisions of these devices that are reported, we are raising san francisco general hospital and other data sources such as the police department and they are thinking the single digits, more or less area when we compare that to the number of auto collisions, as she pointed out, we should be doing this in a normalized way. it's probably an infinitesimal fraction of the collisions on the street. based on the observed behavior of these in the streets, and other items in this meeting, i think to the extent that this is really facilitating mode shift from tnc's two scooters, notwithstanding that there are legitimate safety concerns that

exist with scooters. probably better that a car being driven by somebody who doesn't know where they are going, who's @ an ab, his maybe racing to pick up a fare. on balance, we not elect to the safety issues with the scooters, but to the extent it is a facilitating mode shift out o of -- automobiles, seems to be a nontrivial percentage. on balance it is a positive thing. there are a lot of protections in the permit we have seen from the pilot. we have been able to drive the complaints way down. the number of citations we are issuing our way down. suggesting that the regulatory framework can be an effective way to manage for many things, including safety. i offer that for your consideration. >> i would agree with that. in general, you can't ensure safety.

people make bad choices whatever it is. that is a hard thing about it all. people who are safety minded will wear helmets and make safety choices. they were and the full traffic lane and i thought, oh my god. >> this is an age-old problem. enforcement. it is a constant problem in any facet of law. because enforcement is always the key to making sure that you implement the laws the legislator intended. be careful when you say you're going to get this under control, because it hasn't happened in so many areas. and fact, many times legislation ought not to be introduced we should just enforce the laws we have on the book now, but we don't. whether it's toxic issues,

environmental issues, health issues, traffic issues, et cetera. the issue of safety is extremely important as we begin to look at mobility devices and approaches. i want to share my fellow directors concern on the safety issue on the fact that i do @ that enforcement is really going to be implemented properly. >> if i could ask a question unrelated related to safety, i guess? somebody mentioned the fact that they have seen electric scooters with seats and i always have an interest in making sure our emerging technologies take into account people with disabiliti disabilities. i am wondering, under the legislation for the pilot, not the pilot, the permit if an operator came forward with an innovative idea to make their scooters more accessible without be a factor that would weigh in

favor of them getting a permit? >> yes. that is part of the permit application. we are asking permittees to pilot adoptive scooters. that will be a part of this version of the reporting period. >> i appreciate the legislation as a whole. i thought it was awful. that we are tracking the non- revenue. >> we have a mesh -- motion, second and we have an amendment. >> you need to amend the code. a motion to amend the code to delete the duplicate. >> motion to amend the code to delete 9.16 e3. all in favor of the amendment? >> are we doing two motions. >> that was just for the amendment. >> now we take the original motion of the legislation.

all those in favor of legislation as proposed? the motion does carry. we are going to move on to item 14. i have to read a little script here. >> appointing tom maguire to serve as the interim director of transportation beginning august 14, @ and continuing until a permanent director of transportation an employment agreement with tom mcguire, with an annual salary of $299,000 reimbursement for professional develop in expenses and benefits and other terms and conditions equivalent to specified benefits and other terms and conditions in the memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco and the municipal executives association. >> this agenda item is to take possible action to improve employment agreement between mta

and thomas mcguire. the employment agreement with. >> reiskin expires. he will serve as interim director of transportation from the expiration of mr. reiskin's agreement. [reading notes] california government code section 54953 c three requires the board to report a summary of post salary compensation of fringe benefits before mr. mcguire before taking final action to approve the employment agreement. @ pursuant to that agreement, the board provides the following summary. the proposed agreement says an annual salary of $299,000, under the proposed agreement mr. maguire will receive fringe

benefits equivalent to the specified benefits provided to the employees represented by the municipal executives association under the memorandum of understanding between mta and the sfmta pay the full list of benefits as set forth to this agreement. [reading notes] under the proposed agreement, mr. maguire will be eligible for $2,000 of reimbursement for eligible expenses. @ also receive retirement benefits according to the applicable provisions of the san

francisco charter. under the charter, mr. maguire is responsible for paying any required contributions to the san francisco's retirement system. are there any questions from the director on what i have just read? >> are we going to give him a scooter? [laughter] >> have one question on one of these terms, it's probably been negotiated already and it's not the time to amend it. i want to note, for someone willing to take on this position as interim director i see $2,000 for professional development as @ in terms of executive coaching and other supports that might be appropriate to take on this significant of a challenge. i don't know if there is some limit to, in the budget, or some additional sources of funding. i would be very supportive of additional resources for professional development to usher his success. >> or if he were to decide he did need something else, is that within the ability of the board

to approve it on a requested by request basis? >> city attorney, maybe you can explain, where it is number come from? >> good afternoon, katie porter. i believe that is the reimbursement under the municipal executives associati association, per individual, per fiscal year. this is also anticipated to be a time-based contract through the october -november timeframe. this is $2,000 for a number-5 month period. also the agency has training funds that probably could be deployed, if necessary. $2,000 is what the employees give her a fiscal year. for professional reimbursement on development. >> even a new director, when you hire that person they would only get $2,000, as well. >> it is a negotiated time. this is just a term we came up

with with a contract based on the model. certainly a future director, or this existing contract could be amended to have a higher amount. that is the city model, this is not even intended to be a full fiscal year contract as it structured right now. >> do note to the deputy city attorney's., that this contract as well as this collective bargaining agreement which is where this number comes from as well as some of the others provide for professional develop men dollars. those are in addition to agency funds that are budgeted and available for training and professional development. they are not the only source. many conferences and other things that people attend, some are able to use funds that they have is available through these collective targeting agreements. first of all, the board does not have to stick with this 2,000 number. as with all of those other things, and the collective targeting agreement.

even if you left it, as is, for whatever reason the director just like any other employee, had needs or desires for more training and professional development, there are resources within the agency budget to accommodate that. >> great. are there any other additional questions? without i'm going to open it to public comment? >> mr. bloch is not here. >> good afternoon. my name is laura, i'm here on behalf of doug block. he is sorry he had to leave for another meeting, but he wanted to say that he is supportive of this appointment and thanks to mr. maguire for his collaboration on multiple projects including the commuter shuttles. congratulations.

>> deleted you prefer the record. when i read this agenda item, i was encouraged. we need to have continuity in this agency. i found him to be approachable, and attentive. i go to many of these meetings, not just here but in other places. engagement and approachability, and the open door is very important. tom and i are both products of new york. my area of expertise is much more in the subway and railroad realm. tom's global perspective of leadership and knowledge in this very broad endeavor that isn't

public transportation. my narrow perspective of subway and railroad. it is indeed what this agency needs going forward. i'm looking forward to tom being able to give us a sense of continuity in this so-called interregnum. thank you.

madam chair, your last item on your agenda. as everyone should know, if they aren't already aware, we have started a nationwide search for our next director of transportation. as part of that search we want to engage all of the stakeholders throughout the entire community, within mta, external to mta about their thoughts on the next director. we have a research committee. they are going to be interviewing potential candidates working along with a search firm and recommended them to the board. i want to thank them upfront for taking the time to do this very important tax -- task. >> am pleased to provide an update on the search. the committee has met twice this

summer and we have made good progress. we have additionally provided feedback on the position description on the position announcement is being finalized as we speak. the purpose of today's agenda item is to hear, from the public, those if few of you who remain. the quality experience you want to see. i just want to ensure members of the public that your feedback is going to be taken very seriously as part of this process. we have want to hear from you what kind of director you think is appropriate to lead this agency into the future. i will say as a side note we've heard some inadvertent feedback on the qualities people want to see in the next director things like calmness, embodying the agency's values, dedication and accessibility. i just want to mention we are going to be sending out a survey in the next few weeks to give

folks an opportunity to weigh in anonymously if you have feedback. if you don't feel comfortable speaking today. in terms of timeline and updating on that, we do want to move as swiftly as possible to find a new director while balancing that goal with our commitment to run an inclusive process to find the right director to lead this agency forward. if you have any other comments, that you want to send incoming you can e-mail the mta board with any further suggestions at sfmta.com. >> were going to open it up to the public. >> herbert weiner? >> yes.

>> herbert weiner, these are the qualities i would like to see. for one thing i think the new executive director should be a transportation professional. i think that goes without saying. these are some of the qualities i would like to see from my own personal perspective. i believe that the executive director should be able to take issue with his managers, for one thing. he should be able to clash with them, bite them and even dismiss them. this has not been the case, so far, and i think this has been one of the reasons why we are in the mess we are in right now. he should also take issue with this board. these clashes should be public. they should not be in private only. we should be able to witness these differences and provide some input. we have something to say about this. i think what has been the case

as you have rammed through everything, these meetings have been a dog and pony show. and, we have to get all of the vehicles off of the sidewalk, except the wheelchairs for the disabled. also seniors on the disabled should be supported by the executive director. they have to walk up to a court of a mile to the bus stop. this is inhuman. also, we have to make sure that everyone is search. this agency should serve everyone, and that is the mission of the executive director. so, also, the neighborhoods get equal service. >> thank you.

>> i love a good public meeting. i get to participate and say all kinds of good things. i am looking forward to our search for a new director. my comments today are to be simply taken as they are, comparisons to anybody else out there. i'm looking for bold leadership. i'm being able to embrace the old, and the new. somebody who is diversity mind minded. [please stand by]

him my technique in developing the apartment building and he used this technique and my technique saved him $66 million. is that clear? and i have heard nothing about it during the affordable housing here. and by the same response, this is another example of the differential treatment and you refuse to use the 15% of all buildings for low income bracket people. and as a result you're missing out on approximately 45 units that is supposed for low-income affordable housing. and i also object to all of your words, and being paid a mere $400 million when (indiscernible) -- strike that -- >> thank you for your comments. >> shot four times in mario woods. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> supervisor, and from maccoseff and i would like it to be a director that is willing to take action and have a culture of taking action. and we saw this in the meeting today is that we see not just myself but members of this board

trying to push the m.t.a. to do more. and it would be great if that pushing came from the people inside the m.t.a. and this board and less pushing was needed in the long term. thank you. >> paul breed. i would like to comment that questions are at innovation and towards this job description but i'm not sure that is entirely applicable in my view. when we look around the world we see places like asia and places like europe that have managed to soft their transit problems. it's not a new solution that i think that we're looking for. i think that it's an examination of what we have already found to be evidently useful and productive activities.

we see seoul and tokyo with transit systems to go 160-mile range in an hour and a half and that's not the reality anywhere in america. and so when you contemplate searching for a new director, as this constituent, i would encourage you to examine someone who has experience leading and developing those foreign networks because of those transit networks seem to have done a more functional job at serving their populous than any transit network in my opinion in america has. >> thank you. is there annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

>> 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 ts