C as set forth in the [inaudible]. Speaker mr. Keane. Speaker ill second that. Those two specific aspects, the Supreme Court of the United States has been rather definitive that thats something that we cannot indeed enforce. And we did vote a few months ago exactly the way commissioner reanne is proposing and we voted unanimously thats not in our power. On those i dont have a problem with, and i think its redundant and i second mr. Hurt. Speaker all in favor. Speaker aye. Speaker opposed. Hearing none that motion passes. Speaker can you go to the next. Speaker thank you, chair. The second set of amendments is with respect to reporting requirements for third parties who are involved in supporting or opposing candidates for city elections and the city has instituted three c fro a number of reporting requirements over the years, which are designed for primarily for two things. One is general disclosure to the public. So that the public can fairly judge messages. So that there is a transpa
Those two specific aspects, the Supreme Court of the United States has been rather definitive that thats something that we cannot indeed enforce. And we did vote a few months ago exactly the way commissioner reanne is proposing and we voted unanimously thats not in our power. On those i dont have a problem with, and i think its redundant and i second mr. Hurt. Speaker all in favor. Speaker aye. Speaker opposed. Hearing none that motion passes. Speaker can you go to the next. Speaker thank you, chair. The second set of amendments is with respect to reporting requirements for third parties who are involved in supporting or opposing candidates for city elections and the city has instituted three c fro a number of reporting requirements over the years, which are designed for primarily for two things. One is general disclosure to the public. So that the public can fairly judge messages. So that there is a transparency with respect to political actors. But then also so the voluntary and the
Thank you. Speaker so im happy to hear from other commissioners on this particular one. I mean, to me this one seems pretty clear. If we think we need to defer it to another meeting, im happy to consider this with other issues, but i also dont want to have to revisit things that weve already addressed. You know, to mr. Bushs point, i also dont think that we have to deal with all c fro changes in one meeting. Theres other c fro changes we can address. I do think mr. Bush raises a good point if there are things that we havent addressed that we should be, lets take those up. I dont know that we should holdup all proposed changes because it doesnt include everyone we want to change in c fro. But i open it up to my fellow commissioners. Speaker im prepared to move that we on Decision Point 1 that we approved the section 1. 114 a 2 and 1. 114 c as set forth in the [inaudible]. Speaker mr. Keane. Speaker ill second that. Those two specific aspects, the Supreme Court of the United States has b
We allow elected officials to have a general Purpose Committee which is not a candidate meeting. A general purpose meeting can accept contributions of any amount from any source where a candidate cannot. What we have seen is we have an elected official who has done that and accepted contributions, over 25,000 who has business for the city and being decide by that official. That will not be touched at all. It will be easy to have a prevision that says that the same restrictions that apply to candidate committees would apply to committees thats controlled by a candidate or Office Holder because you have to deal with Public Perception of honesty. Thank you. Speaker thank you. Speaker good evening, commissioners. Just very briefly, i would like to applaud staffs effort to clean up the contribution limits that mr. Manarti just reviewed with you. Its respects to limits and it performs with a case law imposed by the u. S. Supreme court and the District Court here in the 9th circuit. Thank you