Chair ronen mr. Clerk, can you please read item number one. Clerk prior to that, id like to make an announcement. Please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Documents referred to in presentations should be submitted to the clerk. Item number 1 is a hearing to propose the submitted ordinance to members of and candidates for the board of supervisors, the mayor, and candidates for mayor, the City Attorney, and candidates for City Attorney and the controlled committees of those officers and candidates. Chair ronen thank you so much. And i just wanted to note that we have quite a front row crowd in the audience. We have two former supervisors and a judge. We have former supervisor tom ammiano. We have the former chair of the Ethics Commission, tom renne. I will turn this over to supervisor mar. Supervisor mar thank you so much, chair, ronen, for allowing us to hold this informational hearing today, and im proud to be this sponsor on this dark money measure. Its earned the support of eight of my colleagues. Im also proud to share that it has all been endorsed by a number of important organizations, including represent us, friends of ethics, the harvey milk lgbtq democratic club, sf league of conservation voters, San Francisco berniecrats, San Francisco tomorrow, district 11 democratic club, d6 democratic club, and several former Ethics Commissioners. To work towards a more democratic and equitiable future, we must start at the root. If we want to ensure just policies, if we want to ensure just outcomes, we need a just system. Those in Public Office are entrusted to represent the public, and yet the money that fuels our elections is in large part private and fuels our super p. A. C. S who funnel large amounts of dark money in an attempt to buy elections. My constituents experienced this in district 4 last year when over 700,000 was donated by an Organization Called progress San Francisco, and they tried to influence the Mayors Office and other supervisors races last year. This is why ive made electoral reforms one of my priorities in office. While we strive for racial, economic, and gender equality, we must remember that political equality is at the root and intersections of each of these struggles. The path to a fairer, more equitiable and just city is one through a stronger democracy, where neither the color of your skin nor the amount of money in your wallet determines your ability to be represented and heard. When we have enshrined in our constitution the notion that all people are created equal, when corporations are determined to be people and people are not determined equal, in this fundamental inequality has real consequences in the policy of our city and our country. With political spending reaching record highs as trust in government reaches record lows, the issue of faith in our Political Institution is at a crisis point. There is little question of the cause of this disillusionment. When for profits donate to political causes, this is not a kind donation. This is an investment, and they expect returns on their investments, and these returns are real and draw the line between political inequities and racial and economic disparities. We are caught in a vicious cycle in which the rich pour money into election, secure political power and write rules that keep themselves wealthy and the rest of us struggling to get ahead. This is a cycle that builds upon itself in a dangerous feedback loop, and its a cycle that freezes out people of color and entrenches existing hierarchies in centuries of racebased oppression. Solving it is a remaining issue of the civil and Voting Rights movement. The study goes on to say that the government is sharply more responsive to the preferences of the wealthy than those to the average voter. In role of case policy whe including expansion of incarceration, and our stagnant National Minimum wage. So the question we must ask ourselves is not the issues is not the issues at hand, but what we can do about them. Corporate contributions, paytoplay politics, and dark money contributions are all places that bear no place in our democracy and have real consequences. The sun light on Dark Money Initiative addresses all three of these issues. First, it will ban all corporate contributions to many committees. Many are banned under existing law, but there are exceptions depending how businesses are incorporated. But eliminating these loopholes, we can take a clear stand against the appearance and instances of corruption. Second, it will ban paytoplay donations from Real Estate Developers from donating to candidates for elected offices that could play a role in improving those matters. Finally, sun light on dark money will create the strongest dark money disclosure law in the nation. Last year, the supervisor races were the most expensive in recent history. The race for mayor was the most expensive in recent history. Too often, independent expenditure committees are a local version of super p. A. C. S are funded by statelevel committees with nice sounding names like progress San Francisco. Sun light on dark money would change this by requiring i. E. C. S to include disclaimers on political ads listing their top donors and the amount of their donation, and if one of those donors is another committee, the top donors to that committee. Citizens united decided these donations are free speech. While we cant stop this money, we can bring it out of the dark. Even in authoring the majority opinion in Citizens United versus f. E. C. , Supreme CourtJustice Kennedy stressed the value of strong disclosure laws, writing, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporations political speech advances the corporations interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elects officials are in the pockets of socalled money interests. Voters deserve to know whos trying to buy their vote. The public deserves to know that our democracy is not for sale, our politics are not for sale, and our city is not for sale. Before inviting up our presenters, i want to note that in addition to the report and Supreme Court decision i referenced, ive also introduced the following into the record for this hearing. Number one, a civil grand jury report from 2013, requesting the city should require resolutions to require disclosure you ares and that the Ethics Commission should look again at the regulations from proposition j. In 2000, proposition j was placed on the ballot by Citizen Initiative and passed by the voters of San Francisco in a landslide. It regulated behavior of public officials, barring them from receiving a personal a personal or campaign advantage from anyone who gained a Public Benefit by action of the public official. This was later repealed by proposition e in 2003, which sought to recodify conflict of interest laws out of the charter, amending some of them and making nonvoter amendments possible in the future, though the repeal of proposition js regulations went undisclosed. If passed, sun light on dark money will enact the civil grand jury recommendations. Number two, a report from the Brennan Center of the citys 2013 effort to ban paytoplay contributions from Real Estate Developers which mirrors some of the language in this charter and which never went into effect. And number three, a study entitled the appearance and reality of quid pro quo corruption and empirical corruption, ensuring that contemporary politics. To be sure, while real instances of corruption exist and will be spoken on further in this hearing, addressing the potential appearance of corruption is cause enough to justify the provisions of this initiative. Now id like to welcome up former chair of the Ethics Commission and coauthor of this measure, peter keen. Thank you, mr. Chair. Supervisors, id like to commend you for putting forth this measure. Its a measure thats really desperately needed in our democracy, in any democracy. Theres a big vacuum. Supervisor mar, you mentioned Citizens United. One of the things i did in my former life, i was a constitutional law professor for many year, and looking at what the Supreme Court of the United States did in Citizens United, i can equate it with a couple of other rulings which i think Citizens United will have a similar history. Pre plessy versus ferguson, and the ruling in precivil war, saying that black people are not citizens, those were two great mistakes that the Supreme Court of the United States made, the two greatest mistakes. The third one in my opinion is Citizens United in terms of the effect upon democracy. And as some point we, as our history has shown, comes together as a democracy and says this is simply not right. This goes against the whole framework of democracy. And there will come a day and im no profphet, but the Supreme Court will confine Citizens United to the same file that did dredd scott and plessy. As you mentioned, supervisor mar, one big allowance that we can still take care of in terms of people being sure that government is not totally bought, and that is disclosure, that even though money can be given by anyone, the people that are giving it, the u. S. Supreme court has said unanimously all along, disclosure of who these people are is something thats fine. It does not fall or fly in the face of the First Amendment or anything else, and even the other courts that have been proCitizens United. Well, we dont have disclosure. We have minimal disclosure. Disclosure is virtually nonexistent. Ive been watching the political process in San Francisco for about the last 50 years in various things as chief assistant public defender, dean of a law school, and members of two commissions, Ethics Commission and police commission. And one of the things that i see, and particularly i saw it with great vividness on the Ethics Commission i think senator kopp will echo me on this, when things would come to the Ethics Commission, these people are behind these measures and its not disclosed anywhere, and there wasnt a darn thing we could do about it. We tried, senator kopp and paul renne and i tried for a year and a half to get a measure like this through the Ethics Commission. And i was the chair, and i had two very well known individuals, paul renne and senator kopp, and we thought we had it through. For the Ethics Commission to put something through, it requires four votes. We thought we not only had four votes, but we thought we had the four votes. We had the assurance of the fourth vote. And then, on the day of the vote, it was just the three of us. Me, commissioner renne, and senator kopp. And it was just a blunder bust im not an impulsive guy, but when i announced the vote, saying the measure fails, these four votes, measure fails by three i said the measure fails, i resign, and i walked away. Im not someone who is dramatic for the sake of being dramatic. My family will tell you im a rather dull guy. But when i did that, after i did that, John Gollinger and tom ammiano and i said lets go as directly as we can to the voters. The voters want this, because theyve been frustrated on so m many levels. And you, supervisors, have put it on the ballot for november. And i, someone who was not a pr who is not a prophet, it will win overwhelmingly. So i want to thank you very much. I want to add one other person to the long list of individuals who you indicate thd that have endorsed it. I think former mayor art agnos should get noticed. Hes backing it, as are many people as we go along. Thank you very much for this measure that you made. You have made a Wonderful Service to democracy by doing it. Supervisor mar thank you so much, peter. Any questions . Thank you. Now, id like to welcome up election law teacher and attorney John Gollinger. Good morning, supervisors. Chair ronen. Im John Gollinger. I actually cut my teeth on these issues as a community organizer. I spent four years being an attorney for Good Government and environmental issues. I learned the role of politics, and i was involved in a 1996 statewide ballot measure on these very issues. I will just add, my only other credential, ive been in this city a couple of decades working in and around these issues in many capacities, but i decided to go back to school and earn my law degree about a decade ago at golden gate, and was fortunate enough to have peter keen as my law professor, and now, as i said, i teach election law there. I want to drill down on the specifics of the measure. First, i also just want to mention by way of process. I am delighted that i think this measure will be a very good indication of how the process can work in multiple ways to get things done. As was mentioned, there was a log jam in the city hall version of how to get things done, so were going to the ballot. But i will mention as peter said, tom ammiano, he, and i sat down last summer. We started it as an initiative petition, and some, if not all three of you signed it, and then we collected a couple thousand signatures, and then, there was an election, and we were delighted to have supervisor mar and walton support it. I i want to drill down through the first three sections of the measure, and ill give you the legal justification for the third. The first component of the measure as ill describe it is closing the corporate money loophole. What the initiative does is amend section 1114 of the campaign Government Finance code by simply adding to the definition of corporation two other versions of corporation that have emerged since the original corporate ban was adopted. So originally, the board of supervisors adopted a flat ban on corporations donations for elected office. For over a century on the federal level, the federal government has banned direct corporate contributions to candidates for federal office. Whats occurred in recent years in particular is that other forms of corporate entities have emerged really having nothing to do with Campaign Reform law but specifically limited Liability Companies and limited liability partnerships, known as l. L. C. S or l. L. P. S. These have become common ways of doing business for a myriad of small businesses, law firms, etc. So what happened on the local start this started about a decade ago, i suspect crafty corporation lawyers advised their clients they could do an end run around the corporate donation ban by doing that. I said, isnt that the same thing, and they said youve got to change the law. I think thats pretty straightforward, so closing that contribution loophole. Second transparency, and this has been mentioned by presser keen and supervisor mar. But i want to give you a couple of conditions of what the dark money disclosure does. It amends section 1. 61 of the government and Campaign Finances code. This is specifically not about candidate committee disclosure. Our laws relate to the offices you and your competitors ran for were pretty good. People know when shaman walton, gordon mar, hillary ronen, run an ad, you have to put at it paid for by you. There are very few ways you could hide that or minimize that from voters. The same is not true for expenditures, also known as super p. A. C. S, and evdonation committees. Locally, San Francisco has the glorious notion of being the worst local proprietor, if you will, of dark money, invented expenditure money in our local politics. So if you feel like theres tons of dark money in our politics, youre right. Its occurring elsewhere, but San Francisco is off the charts in both volume and common frequency. As ive said, a few committee have made this common practice. In last novembers elections, in both district 4 and district 6, progress San Francisco spent more money on the campaign than the actual candidates, which is only the second time thats ever happened. So what were really doing here is going after what voters know. And as was said, the Supreme Court within the bounds of Citizens United said transparency and disclosure, fine. I have a few examples. This was a district 6 mailer, and the video at the bottom of an internet mailer ad, paid for by a committee, clean and sunset. Major funding by progress San Francisco. And the district 6 version said paid for by san francisca