This is an archive of a past election.|
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sf/ for current information.
Campaign Consultant Ordinance
City and County of San Francisco
Ordinance - Majority Approval Required
Fail: 77259 / 43.88% Yes votes ...... 98800 / 56.12% No votes
Index of all Propositions
|Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Arguments ||
Shall the City amend its campaign consultant ordinance to redefine "campaign consultant;" require campaign consultants to file monthly reports; authorize the City's Ethics Commission to require electronic filing instead of paper reports; change the calculation of City fees campaign on consultants must pay; and allow the City to change any of the ordinance's requirements without further voter approval while still permitting voters to make additional changes?
League of Women Voters
|Arguments For Proposition F||Arguments Against Proposition F|
|Better public disclosure by political consultants + yes on F!
We need to know what political consultants are up to, and Prop F gives the public more information on their activities. It requires more frequent reporting and mandates
electronic filing for instant online access by the public.
Political consultants play a very influential role in our system. They run candidates' campaigns and thus have close relationships with elected officials. The public is entitled to know for whom they are working and whether there are any conflicts of interest in that work.
In addition, it's illegal for political consultants to lobby their clients. That makes sense since a consultant who runs a politician's campaign may have disproportionate influence on him or her when it comes time to make policy decisions. Prop F, by increasing disclosure, helps enforce this lobbying prohibition.Prop F also recognizes that there's a big difference between the large political consulting firms and small grassroots consultants. Prop F raises the threshold for reporting to $5,000 in annual income instead of $1,000.
This change will ensure that small, grassroots consultants are less burdened by reporting requirements. Vote yes on full disclosure + yes on F! Supervisor Scott Wiener Supervisor David Chiu Supervisor David Campos Supervisor Mark Farrell Supervisor Malia Cohen Supervisor Sean Elsbernd Supervisor Carmen Chu* Supervisor Jane Kim
Democrat Peskin asked the Ethic Commission to investigate PFA and whether it "was coordinating its activities with Lee in violation of election law." The Ethics Commission killed the inquiry. Meanwhile: "Kopp requested a [Federal and local] criminal inquiry after The Chronicle reported that Rose Pack, a Lee confidante and fundraiser...had solicited help for [PFA]... from Recology, the city's garbage-collection contractor, which at the time had a $112 million contract to ship waste to a landfill in Yuba County pending before the Board of Supervisors.
... As city administrator, Lee was one of three people evaluating bids [earlier] in July 2009 when he gave Recology a substantially higher score than the other two panelists."
Vote AGAINST Proposition F. Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D. Past Member of President of United States' Federal Executive Awards Committee (1988)* John Michael Russom Parkmerced Resident* Patrick C. Fitzgerald Past Secretary San Francisco Democratic Party*
|THE WHOLE "CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS' REPORTING REQUIREMENTS" ORDINANCE (A UNIQUE SAN FRANCISCO PROGRAM) IS BAD LAW:
Given that political candidates already report the sources of their campaign contributions, San Francisco's unneeded "Campaign Consultants' Reporting Requirements" law (a unique and silly San Francisco program) should be abolished. It is just BAD LAW.
This San Francisco Ethics Commission program charges fees (of course) and is a good way to encourage out-of-town campaign people: "to stay out of the San Francisco political swamp."
The program chills United States Constitutional First Amendment-protected free speech, while serving as a restraint of trade against non-San Francisco political consultants. The project helps second rate local campaign managers to fend away more qualified out-of town talent: "Let's keep new ideas out."
BAD "REFORMS": The particular outrageous "reforms" called for in this misguided Proposition F ballot measure would change the "Campaign Consultants' Reporting Requirements" to make them worse and more costly.
Monthly electronic reports are demanded in this revision, being substituted for the current paper reports required every 3 months. The fees (of course) are also changed. The Ethics Commission loves fees. They have few "ethics" about grabbing money. MORE PROBLEMS: This Proposition F revision would, needless to say,require lots of extra lawyers' fees, too. Still more money will change hands. Proposition F would further limit, a bit, the number of candidates running against incumbents. The more complex the rules, the fewer the people who will step up and try for office. This is good...if you are a not very well qualified incumbent.
Vote AGAINST unneeded and outrageous Proposition F. Proposition F is BAD LAW. Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D. Past Member of State of California's Certified Farmers Market Advisory Board*
Prop F brings the Political Consultant Ordinance into conformity with the Lobbyist Ordinance and the Public Financing Ordinance, both in terms of disclosure as well as how these ordinances are amended and updated.Prop F is a common-sense update to the Political Consultant Ordinance that enhances disclosure and transparency in government. That's why it's been endorsed by San Francisco's good-government organization-- the San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association (SPUR, http://www.spur.org). Vote Yes on F! Supervisor Scott Wiener Supervisor David Chiu Supervisor Sean Elsbernd Supervisor Carmen Chu Supervisor Malia Cohen Supervisor Mark Farrell Supervisor Jane Kim