SEC. 1.134. LIFTING OF VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILINGS; SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTING IN ELECTIONS FOR ASSESSOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CITY ATTORNEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, TREASURER, SHERIFF, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OR THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT.

§ 1.134

ComplexControversial
In plain language

When running for certain San Francisco offices (Assessor, Public Defender, City Attorney, District Attorney, Treasurer, Sheriff, School Board, or Community College Board), a candidate who agreed to spend no more than a set amount may stop following that limit if an opposing candidate spends more, if outside groups spend more to help or hurt them, or if they themselves overspend. The Ethics Commission must be notified within 24 hours when the threshold is crossed, and the Commission will then announce to all candidates that the spending limit no longer applies.

San Francisco allows candidates for certain elected offices to voluntarily agree to limit their campaign spending. However, this agreement only holds if everyone playing fairly. If an opposing candidate who didn't agree to the limit starts spending a lot of money, or if outside groups spend heavily to support or oppose a candidate, or if the candidate themselves spends too much, then the spending limit gets dropped for everyone in that race. When the spending limit gets dropped, the candidate or their campaign has to tell the Ethics Commission within 24 hours, and the Ethics Commission then notifies all candidates in that race that the limit is no longer in effect.

  • Complex:The section involves multiple triggering conditions (three separate subsections in (a)), cross-references to state law and other city code sections, and a distinction between different types of campaign expenditures and communications that may be difficult for lay readers to parse.
  • Controversial:Voluntary spending limits and their enforcement are subjects of ongoing public debate in campaign finance, with disagreements over whether they are fair, whether they should be lifted easily, and what constitutes a legitimate trigger for lifting them.

AI-generated · claude-haiku-4-5 · informational only, not legal advice.

Official text

(Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000; amended by Proposition O, 11/7/2000; Ord. 141-03, File No. 030034, App. 6/27/2003; Ord. 71-05, File No. 041489, App. 4/15/2005; Ord. 75-05, File No. 050624, App. 4/27/2005; Ord. 3-06, File No. 051439, App. 1/20/2006; Ord. 31-06, File No. 051773, App. 2/23/2006; Ord. 268-07, File No. 071003, App. 11/26/2007; Ord. 234-09, File. No. 090989, App. 11/20/2009; Ord. 102-15 , File No. 150294, App. 6/25/2015, Eff. 7/25/2015)

View official source