Measure for Measure: Proposition F
Voting is an essential part of civic engagement, but it can be confusing, especially in local elections. There are some hyper-local issues that we’re deciding on in the upcoming election in SF on November 5th. That’s why we’re doing this round-up of the measures, to provide some insight into the 2019 ballot.
Check out our round-up page for more articles on the other measures.
What is Proposition F?
Proposition F would strengthen campaign finance regulations in San Francisco with three new requirements.
First, it would ban contributions from people with high-value land use approvals (defined as worth at least $5 million) before the city until one year following the final decision. The ban would only apply to the directors of organizations who own the high-value property or developers of projects whose costs are more than the $5 million limit. Homeowners would not be affected by Proposition F if the land use matter only concerns their home.
Second, the measure would also require independent groups buying advertising or other campaign communications to disclose their top three major donors, and lower the threshold for major donors from $10,000 to $5,000. The proposition would require additional information about the funders of political action committees (PACs, which are independent groups that collect money to influence elections). If one of the top three major donors for a piece of advertising is a PAC, then the top two donors to that PAC must also be disclosed on the advertising.
Third, it would also ban direct contributions to candidates from limited liability companies and partnerships (LLCs and LLPs). Currently, city law bans direct contributions from corporations, so Proposition F would extend those restrictions to these other entity types.
Proposition F is sponsored by Supervisor Gordon Mar and is also known as the “Sunlight on Dark Money Initiative.”
Why does it matter?
Ever since 2010’s Citizen’s United Supreme Court decision, there has been heightened concern over the role of donors in our political process. San Francisco has long regulated campaign finance in the city, but there are still gaps in the regulation — some of which Proposition F would fill. The ban on LLCs and LLPs would extend San Francisco’s existing ban on candidate contributions from corporations to these other business entity types. The ad disclosure component helps voters see who is behind PAC spending, which can be difficult since the names of PACs sometimes obscure the interests of their donors.
The ban on contributions from people with ongoing land use matters is important because of its effect on public trust. Existing San Francisco law limits individual candidate contributions to $500, which does make it less likely that an elected official would be swayed by a donation. Anti-corruption regulations, however, are not just about preventing actual quid-pro-quos, but also the appearance of those paid favors.
Public discourse about the housing crisis has become increasingly toxic, indicating the lack of trust that solutions to the housing crisis are not biased. This distrust contributes to the polarization of housing policy, making solutions more difficult to achieve. It’s unlikely that Proposition F’s ban will have a significant effect on reducing actual corruption. Hopefully, though, the prohibition will improve the public’s faith in the city government’s ability to fairly adjudicate land use, allowing us to work towards solutions together.
What are the arguments for Proposition F? Who’s funding the measure?
Supporters of Proposition F argue that the measure will strengthen voter trust in their elected officials, help voters better understand the source of campaign advertisements, and close loopholes that allow companies to evade bans on corporate contributions.
They claim the ban on donations from those with pending land use decisions will help the public feel confident that those decisions are not influenced by campaign contributions. They argue the ad disclosures will make it easier for voters to figure out who is funding the ads by making it harder to hide donations behind PACs. Finally, they also reason that the ban on contributions from LLCs and LLPs will block a method corporate donors used to work around current restrictions.
The measure was sponsored by Supervisors Gordon Mar, Matt Haney, Sandra Lee Fewer, Hillary Ronen, and Rafael Mandelman. It is endorsed by Supervisors Norman Yee, Aaron Peskin, and Vallie Brown. Proposition F has also been endorsed by the San Francisco Democratic Party, a number of former San Francisco Ethics Commissioners, as well as the San Francisco Tenants Union. See the full list of endorsements here.
Sunlight on Dark Money, Yes on F is leading the campaign in support of the measure. Major funding in support of Proposition F comes from the Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, Nancy Keane, and Peter G. Keane. See more funding details here.
What are the arguments against Proposition F? Who’s funding the opposition?
Objectors to Proposition F argue that the measure singles out and demonizes developers by banning contributions from those with pending land use matters. They argue that the threat of donations introducing bias into city officials’ decisions is overblown because of the existing $500 limit on contributions and disclosure requirements that would expose efforts to evade that limit. The opponents also claim that the ban would dissuade potential donors who may fear being covered by the ban and penalties for violations even if their contributions were in fact allowed.
Other critics argue the disclosure requirements and contribution restrictions increase the complexity of campaigning, making it more difficult for less experienced or less well-funded people to participate. Some also fear reprisals against the named donors to campaign advertisements. Even some of those who support the ad disclosures and LLC and LLP bans argue against the measure, claiming those objectives can be accomplished legislatively and without targeting a particular industry.
Proposition F is opposed by SPUR and San Francisco Chronicle as well as the San Francisco Republican and Libertarian Parties. There have not been any registered financial contributions in opposition to Proposition F. See more funding details here.
What is TechEquity’s position on Proposition F?
Normally campaign finance reform would be outside of our mission, but we’re weighing in because Proposition F touches on land use, which is related to our work on housing. While we certainly acknowledge that this measure will disproportionately affect developers, ultimately we feel that the potential to increase public trust in land use decisions is worth that special treatment.
We’ve seen firsthand the effect that the mistrust regarding housing policy has on conversations about solutions and willingness to participate in the civic process. We think that this measure can help increase trust that wealthy donors are not driving the decisions of elected officials, and hope that this trust can help reduce polarization and instead open space for more discussion about how to equitably address the housing crisis.
We say vote yes on Proposition F!
Check our round-up page for more measure articles as we publish them!
We’re uniting tech workers to create a more equitable economy. Join us!
We believe the tech industry, built on the internet — the most democratizing communications platform in human history — can and should contribute to broad-based economic growth that benefits everyone.
