I think it lines up with the 10 change of other jurisdictions and realizing this was the threshold. We werent sure why it was set the way it was back in 2003. We didnt see a strong justification for that at the time. What was the justification in new york city for 10 . I guess it was they had a substantial white paper done by nyu on the number of individuals that were associated with contractors and business entities in the city that were giving and they had given around 25 of all contributions. We have not been able to do the same analysis that was done by a university working with the Campaign Finance board to complete that. But it seemed to given the sort of similar circumstances between the two cities seemed to be well reasoned. Is that the same argument for why the threshold for the dollar amount in the contract was raised from 50 to 100 . We were able to break that down in our analysis based on the reports we had seen and it appeared to us that the 50,000 threshold was capturing
Otherwise, the discloser would have to change to the individual making the contribution. The committee would be in a better place to report it to us. Are committees liable if donors are not forth coming and fail to inform the committee out of neglect . I think thats i dont think that was the intention of the commission but a policy directive for them to determine. Theres administrative opposed to civil criminal agency, we look at strict liability and dont try to understand the intent. But we look at all the factors for enforcement action and what severity. Page 10 line 9, why is the ownership interest threshold lowered from 20 to 10 . Is there data that supports that change . I think its consistent with the ideas from other jurisdictions, particularly new york citys ban where this was extracted or amended from. I think it lines up with the 10 change of other jurisdictions and realizing this was the threshold. We werent sure why it was set the way it was back in 2003. We didnt see a str
University working with the Campaign Finance board to complete that. But it seemed to given the sort of similar circumstances between the two cities seemed to be well reasoned. Is that the same argument for why the threshold for the dollar amount in the contract was raised from 50 to 100 . We were able to break that down in our analysis based on the reports we had seen and it appeared to us that the 50,000 threshold was capturing potentially wasnt capturing a lot of the money, i dont have the specific numbers in front of me, but raising it to the 100,000 threshold reduces the number of affected parties by 100, 120 i think it was. But captured 80 of the money. So we thought it was a substantial amount of the money still captured but not having less sophisticated or the parties that shouldnt be captured. That was based on your own analysis. Correct. And page 12 line 22, why is the term of the period of prohibitions expanded from six to 12 months, is there data that supports that change .
25 of all contributions. We have not been able to do the same analysis that was done by a university working with the Campaign Finance board to complete that. But it seemed to given the sort of similar circumstances between the two cities seemed to be well reasoned. Is that the same argument for why the threshold for the dollar amount in the contract was raised from 50 to 100 . We were able to break that down in our analysis based on the reports we had seen and it appeared to us that the 50,000 threshold was capturing potentially wasnt capturing a lot of the money, i dont have the specific numbers in front of me, but raising it to the 100,000 threshold reduces the number of affected parties by 100, 120 i think it was. But captured 80 of the money. So we thought it was a substantial amount of the money still captured but not having less sophisticated or the parties that shouldnt be captured. That was based on your own analysis. Correct. And page 12 line 22, why is the term of the period