City of San FranciscoProposition F Ordinance - Majority Approval Required
Shall the City establish new restrictions on campaign contributions to local elected officials and candidates, and apply new disclaimer requirements to campaign advertisements?
What is this proposal?
Pros & Cons — Unbiased explanation with arguments for and against
The Question
The Situation
According to the San Francisco Ethics Commission, more than $6.8 million was spent on 22 candidates for five open district seats on the Board of Supervisors. That is an average of $311,000 per candidate. In Board of Supervisors races, third-party spending rose from about $82,000 per candidate in 2010 to about $214,000 per candidate in 2018.
This proposition is positioned as a way to restrict the sources of and provide additional transparency around the origin of private funding of local political campaigns.
Currently, the disclaimer on an advertisement paid for by an independent Political Action Committees (PAC) must name the committee’s top three contributors of $10,000 or more.
Local law restricts direct campaign contributions to local elected officials and candidates from corporations (both for-profit and nonprofit) and city contractors, or those seeking to contract with the City, during specific periods.
There is currently no local law restricting donations from people who have a financial interest in a land-use decision with the City.
If the measure passes, the regulations will go into effect 10 days after the election results are certified.
The Proposal
The proposition applies to two areas; campaign advertising disclosures and campaign contributions.
This proposition requires campaigns to prominently disclose the name and dollar amount contributed by the top three donors contributing $5,000 or more toward campaign ads, lowering the existing limit from $10,000 to $5,000. If any of the top three donors is a PAC (an organization that raises money privately to influence elections or legislation), the disclaimer must disclose their top two donors of $5,000 or more. Website referrals, print materials (flyers, posters, mass mailings, etc.), candidate audio, and visual advertisements are all impacted.
Proposition F would also increase the size of written disclaimers and require disclaimers to appear at the beginning of audio and video advertisements.
Campaign contributions from limited liability corporations (LLC) and limited liability partnerships (LLP) would be subject to the same limitations as corporations.
The proposition further restricts contributions from people who have a financial interest in an existing land use decision with the City. This restriction would start when a request or application regarding a land-use matter is pending before City boards and commissions and would end 12 months after the City’s final decision.
Financial interest is defined as:
◼ A person with an ownership interest of $5 million or more in a project;
◼ A director or principal officer of an entity with an ownership interest of $5 million or more in a project; or
◼ A developer of a project with an estimated construction cost of $5 million or more.
If the land-use matter concerns only the private residence of a contributor, the restriction does not apply.
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to establish new restrictions on campaign contributions to local elected officials and candidates, and apply new disclaimer requirements to campaign advertisements.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make these changes.
Fiscal effect
Supporters say
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF PROP F:
◼ Provides additional transparency to voters regarding paid advertising for candidates in an environment where third-party spending is increasing.
◼ Subjects LLCs and LLPs to the same restrictions as any other corporate entity in terms of contributions.
◼ Removes perceived conflict of interest where a person has a financial interest in an open land use matter with the City.
Opponents say
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROP F:
◼ This measure bars some individuals from participating in the political process in the case of an open land-use decision.
◼ Increased transparency could open the contributors to some PACs up to public harassment.
◼ Does not explicitly include digital or online advertising which have become more essential to campaigns.
Details — Official information
YES vote means
A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to establish new restrictions on campaign contributions to local elected officials and candidates, and apply new disclaimer requirements to campaign advertisements.
NO vote means
A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.
Summary
Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: Local law restricts certain campaign contributions to local elected officials and candidates including:
• Contributions from corporations; and
• Contributions from City contractors, or those seeking to contract with the City, during certain periods.
State and local law require campaign advertisements to disclose specific information about their funding, referred to as “disclaimers.” These disclaimers must identify the political committee that paid for the advertisement. Also, the disclaimer on an advertisement paid for by an independent political committee must name the committee’s top three contributors of $10,000 or more.
The Proposal: Proposition F would restrict two types of campaign contributions:
• Contributions to any local elected official or candidate from limited liability companies or limited liability partnerships; and
• Contributions to members of the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, the City Attorney, candidates for these offices and campaigns that they control, from persons with certain financial interests in City land-use approval matters.
Contributions relating to land-use approvals are restricted for persons with one of the following types of financial interests:
• A person with an ownership interest of $5 million or more in a project;
• A director or principal officer of an entity with an ownership interest of $5 million or more in a project; or
• A developer of a project with an estimated construction cost of $5 million or more.
This restriction would start when a request or application regarding a land-use matter is pending before certain City boards and commissions, and would end 12 months after the City’s final decision.
Proposition F would also change the disclaimer requirements for advertisements paid for by independent political committees:
• These disclaimers would be required to name the committee’s top three contributors who donated at least $5,000 and the amount each contributed.
• If any of those contributors is another independent political committee, the advertisement would be required to name that other committee’s top two contributors who donated at least $5,000 and the amount each contributed.
Proposition F would increase the size of written disclaimers and require disclaimers to appear at the beginning of audio and video advertisements.
Financial effect
City Controller Ben Rosenfield
Should the proposed initiative ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a minimal impact on the cost of government.
The ordinance expands the list of corporate entities prohibited from contributing to a candidate committee. In addition, the ordinance includes a new section of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code prohibiting any contribution to a member of the Board of Supervisors, a candidate for the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, a candidate for Mayor, the City Attorney, or a candidate for City Attorney from a person, or the person's affiliated entities, with a financial interest of at least $5 million in a land use matter before various specified boards within 12 months from the date of the final resolution of the matter. Finally, the ordinance expands filing and disclosure requirements for contributions to campaign advertisements.
The Ethics Department would incur some additional staff costs related to monitoring and enforcement of the proposed additional filing and disclosure requirements and prohibited entities. One-time costs for software development of new reporting requirements would be $50,000 to $100,000.
Published Arguments — Arguments for and against
Read the proposed legislation
Who supports or opposes this measure?
Organizations (4)
- SF Bay Guardian
- SF Examiner
- SF Green Party
- SF League of Pissed Off Voters
Organizations (2)
- SPUR
- San Francisco Chronicle
