tv [untitled] June 7, 2012 3:00pm-3:30pm PDT
the commission and be dismissed then is the case in los angeles. did i say the opposite? excuse me, l.a. has 19% and san francisco, 76%. much higher in san fncof the did raising is prohibited by contractor principles, and subcontractors in los angeles. they are not spelled out in the san francisco coach, while fundraising by contractors -- excuse me, contributions by contractors is prohibited. fund-raising by their principals and subcontractors is not prohibited in san francisco. there are some compliance costs tat are considered qualifying expen work towards getting the expenditure ceiling.
in san francisco, there are some cash contributions can only be made for less than $25. for here, and his less than $100. those have less information about the contributor. in terms of education, the city of los angeles publishes a contributor that -- died. san francisco does not. it is on the website of theethit have anything comparable year. we have guides for candidates, of course, as does l.a. in terms of enforcement authority of the ethics commission's, they are similar in both cities. penalties of $5,000 or three
times the value of the infraction can be imposed in both cities. one difference, though, is backed penalties can be imposed by a civil action brought by a citizen in los angeles. hear, the language appears to state that penalties can only be imposed if through enforcement action, which means the ethics commission or the city attorney or district attorney was involved in the process, but not civil action brought by a citizen. lobbyistst file monthly reports in san francisco. i. los angeles, it is quarterly, but here is a case where san francisco has the more stringent requirement. reporting threshold is lower in san francisco. it is $100 vs $1,000. also in san francisco, regarding lobbyists, lobbyists must complete a training here that is not required in los angeles.
the penalty for lobbyist infractions is $2,000 or three times the amount of an illegal debt in san francisco. i. los angeles, it is the greater of the amount of $2,000 or the amount of the gift. it could and it being lower or higher. -- it could end up being lower or higher. san francisco for his contributions from corporations entirely. l.a. does not have the same limitation. san francisco does not allow anonymous contributions in any amount. l.a. does allow anonymous contributions up to $200.
i think i mentioned before, reports are required quarterly in l.a. expenditure caps are lower in san francisco for district and city wide offices. those are some of the key points. happy to answer any questions. supervisor campos: before i turn it colleaguthy is i am not really passing judgment one way or the other on some of the points. it is simply about providing information to this body and also providing affirmation to the ethics commission. our hope is that after this hearing that this report can be sent to the ethics commission said that they can consider areas where maybe some changes or enhancements may be appropriate. it is up to them to figure out what those recommendations are, but the hope is that in the process of doing that, back --
that the ethics commission will have the meaningful public engagement process that allows interested parties across the board to be able to provide insight and perspective on these things. >> i thank the supervisors for being here. supervisors campos and wiener for being here. was "los angeles times only of the city and looked at, and have there been discussions of looking at other cities as well? i think they could be a lot of debate about how to handle these things. >> yes, the assignment was just in comparison to l.a. supervisor farrell: i think that will be something interesting to look at going forward. there's a big difference between the city council and mayor's race in l.a.
has that say bifurcation of contribution amounts always existed in l.a.? >> yes, it has. i do not have the previous numbers right in front of me, but yes, they have always had that distinction. it is a citywide office, and those amounts apply not only to the mayor, but to the city attorney and to the controller. for whatever reason, they have always had that distinction. that is it 1700 and 1300? >> 700 city council. 1300 -- supervisor farrell:wwas it before? >> i dno number in>> the springd from 500 for city council offices and 1000 for mayor.
supervisor farrell: you said that had not changed in eight years, correct? >> [inaudible] supervisor farrell: ok. our $500 has been around for 20- plus years. ok, as we continue to talk about limiting money in government, which i fully agree with, and the political system, i think that it's an interesting discussion th whawe have week with thank you. with the expenditure side. lower cap for city council members to produce a break in public financing, and the mayor, city controler, and city attorney can spend more. supervisor wiener: i did want to follow up -- i do not the with the right answer is, and i do not know that i had a particularly strong view on this subject, but in terms of money
fwi canacompared independentis c wheraccounts, it gets pushed ino independent expenditure accounts. candidates are perfect, but i think you can see a lower level of negativity coming directly from canada to some of the outside groups. just a topic for discussions. if you assume money will always find a place to go in politics for better or for worse -- we have a lot more control over canada aounts than some of the because of the awful citizens united case. t question, a clarification. in terms of t of the ethics cases that were dismissed --petage in san ci l.e ethics complaints came from the
sunshine ordinance, and which did not? >> there were 33 of the 137 that were sunshine ordinance. if you do not have it right now, that is fine. >> i not know how many were also -- i could get that information to you. supervisor that would be great. thank you. supervisor campos: beforeover t, one quick question -- did you looked at the issue of staffing or resources -- wondering what level of staffing is provided in los angeles compared to what may be provided here. >> no, we did not compare the staffing between the tip of the
zero offices. rvis campos:stn expanding the analysis, we could do that. this simply chose one city as a if people want to expand beyond to do that. we have a number of speaker cards. [reading names] i do not know if we have and it would hear from the ethics commission, if there is something the ethics commission would like to say before we move to public comment. i apologize. before we go to public comment, if we could have someone from the ethics commission >> -- ethics commission.
>> good afternoon, supervisors. i actually do not have anything to say about this. we have not received a report, but we would be interested in looking at it. supervisor campos: thank you very much. with that, the folks that i called, and in addition, i have a number of other cards. [reading names] any member of the public who would like to speak, please come forward. thank you very much. >> first and foremost, i read the report. it was forwarded togentleman whs room. my experience when i worked in the presidio as a congressional liaison, gave me an insight of the lot of the factors or the
elements that should go into a good report. so the population, as the report states, is about for san francisco 800,000, butverified,. is 2.2 millio thatdismisses 76%, 19%. what we need to discussvery deef that proxy's are for example, it says here during this time, a contractor can do contractor can to
100 people,'s, aat goes into the campaign of some of your supervisors. so you are going to open a can of worms, and i hope you open a can of worms as soon as possible. as one of your supervisors said, it is good that we have some variables comparable to san francisco. thank you very much. supervisor campos: next speaker. anyone? was called, goo afternn,peiamdi amthsunshie ordinance task forcan0 years. regarding the 33 dismissals of sunshine complaints by the ethics commission, the board and this committee should be aware of some things. one, a lot of those dismissals shou not have been dismissals sf
level, not co have been, in many the flimsiest legal reasoning. of hinrelated cai them by us, d chances that the ethics commission will have a much more hands-on approach to those finally, without the sunsnedinance task force, the ethics commission itself would receive a lot more sunshine, and the city attorney's office would bet supervisor campos: nexsp>> goor
convening this hearing. i am actually quite delighted to be here and to have this hearing and the report. i was the ethics commission a for a term of six years. finished my term last year. during that time, i was very terested in having more along tf the report from the budget and legislative analyst. i agree with supervisor really t open and comprehensive gius for an i am delighted to have the pp to now create what hope will beof ethics reform legislation. i think we have seen the civil grand jury report that labeled the ethics commission a sleeping waunfortunately, i have to con
moniker. during my time the ethics commission, i did not feel that there was the to willof work that was rindicaot would just note that whatever we speak to specific issues, but i can do in the wake of citizens united to follow the money, such as some things that are cited in that report and more, looking at increasing the frequency of reporting for bot contributions and reporting, for having political from registeredrit an appropriate definition of lobbyist and makinglobbyis rege we do not have all the lobbyists reeran >> thank you. in 1993, i was the author of an op-ed piece in the first-owned
"examiner" proposing the creation of a commission. we used los angeles as the ndghel more active things.ingseh avehappenedening to create looph we did not consider. for example, we have a law that bans people who are seeking contracts from making contributions, but we do not have a law that prohibits people seeking permits -- especially large privets -- from making large permits. test here the nu lobbyists contractsn 2011 thos loophole. hile we furtheractr fg contributions, we do not prohibit them from contributions from others or serving on a fund-raising group to get money. these are been closed by los ans
but ha not been in san francisc. to leave you with some notes on some of the other issues, the y our audien is not goethics commisan ge dr chise org a violation that involves a community that is modeling will, they do not have a translator that stands up and speaks. to finish the statement you were everyone gets the time. anything?t change the fact thatcessle. early february been pre 2010. supervisor campos: thank you. next>> good afternoon, supervisn
if you remember, during that me leat because therinr a questn cities, one of the cities we looked at was also new york city. new york city -- very large metropolitan ity that has been in the reporting arena if we were going to look atth wd be a very, very good. i wonderful that and sending ithicsommission. serious. we really within a district that would
give a lot more money for the you did not have to increase the $500 limit, but by e the amountf please.pos wner on campaigns, sometimes working for candidate, sometimes working on opposite sides. i also re decion to the ethics commission. of the.uences ofe so i raising the th havinghe nds s threngagin adster serving on the commission, i represented a mexican immigrant supervisor who was g to a baof t pieces the lak re notorious with nazi