which way? the idea is that if the deadline is e -88, someone can file until the end of august, the e-70 deadline to get sufficient, qualified contributions from this number of contributors may be as short as 18 days if they file at the last minute. and there have been instances of that recently. my thought was that if the filing deadline remains this way, giving this to 60 or 28 days to gather significant contributions for the number in value would offer more level playing field to the extent that the deadline is moved back by 58 days and this will change up the whole thing. i think he is still using this any way. a question for you. i have some other things with respect to the first thing, i think you referencing something about the timing and how this is a multiple issue in one piece of legislation? can you talk about what you were referring to? section 2 on page 15, the municipal elections, by moving the filing deadline, this is not directly related to the pub
deadline. if they are incumbent i would support the mayoral iec of $2 million on page four and five. the timing of the payments on page 7, 142 days. i think that this kind of works. i would look at something in that neighborhood that was like 147. there was a provision elsewhere that candidates can claim the funds up to 40 days after the election and i thought that the program has 40 days post for a total of 180 days. this is close to that. 142 eventually falls on a sunday. and there is a proposal to eliminate the candidate available disbursement limit and i think that this is important to retain because this is not always necessarily the case, that there are no funds in the campaign fund/the number of candidates to provide the maximum allowable funds, and that is why this process as in the legislation. eliminating that may cause some confusion in the event that the fund is not fully replenished. i think that is close to the end. a thank-you. on page 14 and 15, with respe
proposal in attempting to make this more compliant with the decision. although i would oppose any increases in the cap amounts for supervise elections, i don t think that there is any data showing why the presidential caps are not adequate for anyone who would not want to run for supervisor or mayor. as you know, the public financing comes out of the general fund and we re looking at another $300 million deficit this year at least. i think this money could be spent more appropriately. i am against increasing these caps on public financing for a supervisor s order may years. you have no information showing why the present cap is not adequate. thank you. thank you, mr. hill. did evening and thanks to everyone who participated. this is a good process involving the ethics committee and the board, to draft something given this supreme court ruling. you had to make some changes. raising the caps is appropriate, both in the here and now and in the future, and talking to the boar
sunday. and there is a proposal to eliminate the candidate available disbursement limit and i think that this is important to retain because this is not always necessarily the case, that there are no funds in the campaign fund/the number of candidates to provide the maximum allowable funds, and that is why this process as in the legislation. eliminating that may cause some confusion in the event that the fund is not fully replenished. i think that is close to the end. a thank-you. on page 14 and 15, with respect to the effects of violations, the language could be clarified a little so that the mayor may suspend any member of the board for such violations, to keep the member from office and not the candidate, although it does suggest in that construction that an incumbent member of the board, if of violating the provision could be removed from office simply for a campaign violation while in office as opposed to a candidate running who is not who has not attained office.
contributions from at least 1200 contributors by a certain deadline. if they are incumbent i would support the mayoral iec of $2 million on page four and five. the timing of the payments on page 7, 142 days. i think that this kind of works. i would look at something in that neighborhood that was like 147. there was a provision elsewhere that candidates can claim the funds up to 40 days after the election and i thought that the program has 40 days post for a total of 180 days. this is close to that. 142 eventually falls on a sunday. and there is a proposal to eliminate the candidate available disbursement limit and i think that this is important to retain because this is not always necessarily the case, that there are no funds in the campaign fund/the number of candidates to provide the maximum allowable funds, and that is why this process as in the legislation. eliminating that may cause some confusion in the event that the fund is not fully replenished. i think that is close