Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

San Francisco, California, Proposition F, Campaign Contribution Restrictions and Advertisement Disclaimer Requirements (November 2019)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Local ballot measure elections in 2019
Proposition F: San Francisco Campaign Contribution Restrictions and Advertisement Disclaimer Requirements
LocalBallotMeasures Final.png
The basics
Election date:
November 5, 2019
Status:
Approveda Approved
Topic:
Local elections and campaigns
Related articles
Local elections and campaigns on the ballot
November 5, 2019 ballot measures in California
Local Ballot Measures
See also
San Francisco, California
2019 San Francisco mayoral election
2019 San Francisco city elections

A measure concerning campaign contribution restrictions and advertising disclaimers was on the ballot for voters in San Francisco, California, on November 5, 2019. It was approved.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of establishing the following requirements for campaign advertisement disclaimers and restrictions on campaign contributions:
  • a ban on limited liability companies or partnerships contributing to candidate committees;
  • a ban on contributions to a city supervisor, the mayor, the city attorney, or any candidates for these positions from someone with certain levels of financial interest in any matter concerning zoning, city planning, or land-use changes; and
  • requirements that specify how advertisements must display funding and what donation threshold requires a disclaimer.
A no vote was a vote against changing the city's campaign contribution restrictions and advertisement disclaimer requirements, thereby leaving the current laws in place.

Measure design

Campaign finance restrictions

The measure banned contributions to executive city officials and candidate committees from individuals or entities with property or projects subject to land use matters. The measure defined a land use matter as "any request to a City elective officer for a Planning Code or Zoning Map amendment [or] ... any application for an entitlement that requires a discretionary determination at a public hearing before a City board or commission."[1]

Individuals or entities with property or projects subject to a land use matter are not able to donate under Proposition F if they meet one of the following criteria:

  • an ownership interest of $5 million or more in a property or project;
  • an executive officer of an entity that has an ownership interest of $5 million or more in a property or project; or
  • a developer with estimated construction costs exceeding $5 million.

The measure also added limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships to the list of corporations prohibited from donating directly to candidate committees. These corporations and limited liability companies are allowed to have a separate fund for political purposes that complies with federal and state law.[1]

The following table describes the changes enacted by Proposition F for campaign advertisements:


Requirements by campaign advertisement mediums Existing law (going into the election) Changes under Proposition F
Printed advertisements Did not require both name and contribution amount Requires a disclaimer with name and contribution amount of top three donors
Audio and video advertisements Required a spoken disclaimer at the end of the advertisement Requires a spoken disclaimer at the beginning of the advertisement listing the top three donors
All campaign advertisements Did not require an additional disclosure concerning contributions from secondary committees Requires a disclaimer of the top two donors to the secondary committee that donated to the primary committee
All campaign advertisements Contribution disclosure threshold: $10,000 Contribution disclosure threshold: $5,000

Election results

San Francisco Proposition F

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

151,023 76.89%
No 45,384 23.11%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:[1]

“

Shall the City establish new restrictions on campaign contributions to local elected officials and candidates, and apply new disclaimer requirements to campaign advertisements?[2]

”

Ballot simplification digest

The following summary of the measure was prepared by the office of the 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.

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.[2]

”
—Ballot Simplification Committee[3]

Full text

The full text of Proposition F is available here.

Estimated fiscal impact

The city controller estimated that Proposition F would have minimal impact on the cost of government. Estimated costs include added Ethics Department staff to enforce the measure and $50,000 to $100,000 for new software development to implement reporting requirements.[4]

Support

Sunlight on Dark Money campaign logo

Sunlight on Dark Money - Yes on F led the campaign in support of the measure. Former San Francisco Ethics Commission chair, Peter Keane, sponsored the initiative, and former Democratic assembly member, Tom Ammiano, was the chairman of the support committee.[5]

Supporters

Officials

Organizations

Arguments

  • Gordon Mar, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said, "Faith in government requires faith in our electoral process, and dark money, pay-to-play, and corporate influences are all marks against the trust the public places in us."[7]

Official arguments

The official argument in support of Proposition F was authored by Supervisor Gordon Mar, former Chair of the San Francisco Ethics Commission Peter Keane, former San Francisco Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, former San Francisco Ethics Commission Chair Bob Planthold, former San Francisco Ethics Commission Chair Paul Melbostad, former San Francisco Ethics Commissioner Quentin Kopp, and Sunlight on Dark Money Campaign Director Jon Golinger.[4]

“

VOTE YES ON PROP F TO SHINE SUNLIGHT ON DARK MONEY

San Francisco elections are awash in unlimited Dark Money from Corporate SuperPACs. Voters are prevented from making fully informed choices by the lack of strong disclosure laws, which allows shell committees to hide the true source of these Corporate PAC advertisements. Loopholes in existing law allow corporate contributions directly to candidates. 'Pay-to-play' politics undermine voter trust in the integrity of decisions made by City Hall.

Proposition F, the Sunlight On Dark Money Initiative, strengthens the San Francisco Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance to assist voters in making informed decisions, fight corruption, and enhance the integrity of our elections.

Proposition F will:

1) STRENGTHEN DARK MONEY DISCLOSURE: Increases disclosure of the true source of funds behind campaign ads by Dark Money SuperPACs such as 'Progress San Francisco' to help voters understand who is paying for the campaign ads they see in the mail, on television, and online.

2) FIGHT PAY-TO-PLAY CORRUPTION: Cracks down on “pay-to-play” corruption by prohibiting real estate developers and those with financial interests in land use decisions from giving campaign contributions to public officials who oversee those decisions while they are being made and for a period thereafter.

3) CLOSE THE CORPORATE MONEY LOOPHOLE: Extends the existing ban on corporations making direct contributions to candidates to include 'limited liability companies' and 'limited liability partnerships,' which have been used to circumvent the ban.

Learn more at www.SunlightOnDarkMoney.com[2]

”

Opposition

Opponents

  • San Francisco Republican Party[8]

Arguments

If you know of opponents or arguments that should be posted here, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Official arguments

The official arguments in opposition to Proposition F were authored by the San Francisco Republican Party.[4]

“

Proposition F should be opposed. It will only exacerbate the problem it claims to address, the two primary reasons being: it unfairly bans individuals from fully participating in the political process if they choose to seek legal remedy from city agencies regarding use of their property, and the contributor disclosure requirements in this climate will only produce a chilling effect on political speech originating outside the local Democratic establishment.

Proposition F ironically means more official interactions you have with your local government, the less say you have in the formal process for choosing the makeup of said government. No one should be forced to sit on the political sidelines, simply because they asked for a zoning variance or a discretionary entitlement from a city agency in the preceding year.

Proposition F also requires names of certain committee contributors to be disclosed, ostensibly for greater transparency with voters. Unfortunately, in this tumultuous era where 'doxing' is the norm, this will only make people more vulnerable to politically-motivated harassment, suppress dissent, and force consensus without adequate prior dialogue.

It also empowers outside moneyed interests at the expense of local ones. With San Francisco’s real estate prices so high, many people who have been here for generations are the most affected; allowing those from outside San Francisco or those with the least to lose -- to play a larger role.

People will not stop participating in the political process merely because the objective, formalized channels are closed to them. Just like we see with gun laws, the perverse incentives invoked by Proposition F will only alienate the law-abiding, while encouraging the dishonest to pursue their interests in ways even further removed from proper oversight.

Please vote no on Proposition F.[2]

”

Media editorial positions

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

  • San Francisco Examiner: "The 'Sunlight on Dark Money' initiative aims to give voters more information about who is funding political ads and tighten some limits on who can donate to campaigns in an effort to avoid 'pay-to-play' politics. ... Overall, Proposition F is a relatively modest measure, but it is one we are happy to support."[9]

Opposition

  • San Francisco Chronicle: "Proposition F aims to limit pay-to-play campaign contributions and expose the sources of independent campaign expenditures, both worthy goals. The trouble is that its limit on donations from those with land-use matters before the city singles out developers — one special interest that doesn’t seem to be having its way with anti-development San Francisco — and ignores the influence of organized labor and others who consistently get what they want. Making opaque fundraising committees more transparent is a fair and worthwhile endeavor, but the Board of Supervisors could — and should — impose those requirements without going to the ballot."[10]

Background

Satellite spending in the 2018 mayoral election

See also: Mayoral election in San Francisco, California (2018)

During the 2018 San Francisco mayoral election, several television advertisements aired opposing Mark Leno and Jane Kim that were funded by super PACs with undisclosed donors. For example, the Voters for a Real Change, Opposing Mark Leno for Mayor committee received contributions from Safe and Affordable San Francisco. The super PAC did not need to disclose its donors because in 2015 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved Ordinance No. 102-15, which repealed sections of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code that required super PACs to do so. According to the board's meeting minutes, the amendment was enacted to "simplify and consolidate campaign finance disclaimer and disclosure requirements." Proposition F required a super PAC that buys an advertisement in support or against a candidate or measure to disclose its top three donors. If one of its top donors is another super PAC, it is required to disclose the second super PAC's top two donors.[11][12][13]

Assembly Bill 249: California DISCLOSURE Act

See also: Campaign finance requirements in California

In October 2017, the California State Legislature enacted the DISCLOSURE Act, which specified how advertisements had to disclose their funding. The law enacted the following key changes:

  • committees receiving donations from other committees in support of the same candidate must report the donation to the second committee from the original donor, not the first committee;
  • electronic advertisements must include the text "Who funded this ad?" with a link to a website that discloses the top three donors who gave over $50,000;
  • television advertisements for candidates or ballot measures must disclose the top three donors who gave over $50,000 in the last year by name and amount; and
  • social media accounts used for political advertising must disclose the committee's funding on the primary page.[14][15]

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through San Francisco's process by which the mayor or at least four members of the board of supervisors can propose a measure for the ballot. The process is governed by Article II, Section 2.113 of the San Francisco City Charter. This measure was put on the ballot by the following sponsoring board members:[16]

  • Gordon Mar;
  • Matt Haney;
  • Sandra Lee Fewer;
  • Hillary Ronen; and
  • Rafael Mandelman.

See also

External links

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 San Francisco Elections Office, "Qualified Local and District Measures," accessed August 12, 2019
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee, "Information About Local Ballot Measures," accessed August 12, 2019
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 San Francisco Elections, "Official Voter Guide," accessed October 2, 2019
  5. ↑ Sunlight on Dark Money, "Home," accessed September 12, 2019
  6. ↑ 6.00 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 Sun Light on Dark Money, "Endorsements," accessed September 17, 2019
  7. ↑ 48 Hills, "Supes put dark money measure on November ballot," February 12, 2019
  8. ↑ San Francisco Republican Party, "Voter Guide," accessed October 16, 2019
  9. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Here are the Examiner’s recommendations for the November ballot’s local measures," October 5, 2019
  10. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Editorial: No on SF Prop. F, a suspiciously lopsided campaign finance reform," October 7, 2019
  11. ↑ 48 Hills, "Dark money floods into SF mayor’s race," May 16, 2018
  12. ↑ San Francisco Board of Supervisors, "Ordinance No. 102-15," accessed September 18, 2019
  13. ↑ San Francisco Board of Supervisors, "June 16, 2015 Meeting Minutes," accessed September 18, 2019
  14. ↑ Covington: Inside Political Law, "California Legislature Passes “California DISCLOSE Act,” a Complex but Clarifying Update to the State’s Political Advertising Disclosure Rules," September 18, 2017
  15. ↑ Alder & Colvin, "2018 Elections: The California Disclose Act Increases Transparency of Donors Supporting Political Ads on the Internet and Social Media," accessed September 18, 2019
  16. ↑ American Legal, "San Francisco City Charter, Article II," accessed August 25, 2019
v • e
Local ballot measures in California
Counties
California
Analysis
Political topics
Tax measures
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=San_Francisco,_California,_Proposition_F,_Campaign_Contribution_Restrictions_and_Advertisement_Disclaimer_Requirements_(November_2019)&oldid=7882114"