>>> I AM JOINED BY SEVERAL
COLLEAGUES, COUNCIL MEMBER
TAMMY MORALES, ALEX PEDERSEN
AND ANDREW LEWIS.
I BELIEVE WE WILL BE JOINED BY
A FEW OTHER AS THE MEETING
COMMENCES.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH ME
THIS MORNING AND LOOKING
FORWARD TO A ROBUST
CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS SUITE
OF BILLS.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED?
HEARING NO OBJECTION TODAY'S
HEARING IS ADOPTED.
QUICKLY AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CHAIR REPORT, THERE ARE THREE
ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
WE ARE CONTINUING DISCUSSION OF
THE CLEAN CAMPAIGN ACTS 119730,
31 AND 732.
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF WILL TAKE
US THROUGH A BRIEFING ON ALL
THREE PIECES OF THIS
LEGISLATION AND THAT WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSION AND
POTENTIAL VOTE ON COUNCIL BILLS
119731 AND 119732 SO ONLY TWO
OUT OF THE THREE BILLS.
BEFORE WE CONTINUE WITH THE
AGENDA, WE WILL DO WHAT WE DO
WHICH IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC
COMMENT AT THE TOP OF OUR
AGENDA.
I WILL CALL OUT EACH IN THE
ORDER THEY SIGNED UP AND EACH
SPEAKER IS PROVIDED UP TO TWO
MINUTES TO PROVIDE THE
COMMITTEE WITH THEIR PUBLIC
COMMENT.
WE ASK THAT EACH COMMENTER
START BY STATED THEIR INARM FOR
THE RECORD.
THERE ARE TIMERS IN THE FRONT
OF THE ROOM THAT LET YOU KNOW
WHERE YOU ARE ON YOUR TIME AND
THEN WE WILL TURN OFF THE
MICROPHONE AT THE END OF YOUR
TWO MINUTES AND ASK YOU TO WRAP
UP YOUR COMMENTS IF YOU ARE
EXCEEDING YOUR TWO MINUTES.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET
STARTED.
THE FIRST SPEAKER IS COLLEEN --
I HAVE A HARD TIME READING YOUR
LAST NAME.
SORRY.
COLLEEN IS UP FIRST AND THEN
FOLLOWING COLLEEN WILL BE
PATRICK BURKE.
>> GOOD MORNING, CITY COUNCIL
AND WELCOME TO YOUR FIRST
OFFICIAL DAY AFTER YESTERDAY
AND THANK YOU FOR -- MOST
IMPORTANT THING AS AN
INDIVIDUAL, I HAVE BEEN THROUGH
10 ELECTION CYCLES FOR CITY
COUNCIL.
I WANT TO APPLAUD THIS
COMMITTEE'S WORK.
THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND
WHEN YOU SEE THE DATA THAT
TALKS ABOUT 44% OF INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES CREEPING UP INTO
OUR ELECTIONS, THAT IS SCARY.
JUST A FEW MEANT COMMENTS.
IT'S GREAT THE LEGISLATION
INCLUDES ALL ENTITIES BEING
EQUAL, BUSINESSES TREATED THE
SAME AS UNIONS, PACS FOR
INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL
AFFILIATIONS AND AS WELL AS
BUSINESS ALL THROWN TOGETHER.
THEY SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY
AS FAR AS REGULATIONS GO.
SECONDLY, SINCE THIS COMMITTEE
IS DIGGING DEEPLY INTO THE
PROCESS OF FAIR ELECTIONS, WE
MIGHT BACKTRACK AND INCLUDE THE
DEMOCRACY VOUCHERS.
IT WAS VERY DISHEARTENING TO
SOME OF THE MEMBERS, THE VOTERS
IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE WHEN A
COUNCIL MEMBER RUNNING WOULD
NOT USE THE DEMOCRACY VOUCHER
SYSTEM, THOSE WERE AVAILABLE
AND THEN THEY WERE TARGETED TO
DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.
WITH DISTRICTS ELECTIONS GOING
ON, IT TURNS OUT THAT SOME OF
THE CANDIDATES HAVEED MAJORITY
OF THEIR MONEY COMING FROM A
DIFFERENT DISTRICT.
PEOPLE WERE CONFUSED ABOUT
THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS COMMITTEE
CAN ADDRESS THAT BUT I THINK
THAT IS A REFORM OR SOMETHING
TO LOOK INTO THAT IS
MEANINGFUL.
AND THEN LASTLY WHATEVER
LEGISLATION TAKES PLACE, YOU
GUYS ARE SMART AND MANY OF YOU
ARE ATTORNEYS AND TO MAKE SURE
THAT THESE LAWS ARE COMPLIANT
WITH THE ELECTION LAWS WHICH
ARE TECHNICAL SOMETIMES TO BE
SURE THAT WHATEVER YOU PASS
ACTUALLY WILL GET ENACTED
WITHOUT ANY CHALLENGES, ACLU ET
CETERA.
THANKS SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEEN.
WELCOME COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
TO THE TABLE.
WE WILL HEAR FROM PATRICK
BURNING FOLLOWED BY ALICE WOLF.
>> I WILL STICK TO MY PAPER.
NOVEMBER 10, 2015 HEADLINE ON
THE ATLANTIC CITY, A PUBLIC
FINANCING PROGRAM, VOTERS GET
$100 OF ELECTION VOUCHERS.
MARCH 3, 2016 LESS THAN FOUR
YEARS LATER I GOT INVOLVED IN
POLITICS BECAUSE I FELT LIKE
THIS PROGRAM IS WHAT WE NEEDED
TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.
I WORKED ON FOUR CITY COUNCIL
CAMPAIGNS.
I CAN ATTEST THE MOST STRESSFUL
TIMES DURING THE CANDIDATE'S
RACE IS THE MONEY.
WE EXPERIENCED THE WORLD'S
RICHEST MAN TRY TO INFLUENCE
THE PLANS.
WITH LIMITS WE CAN FIX THIS.
THE WHOLE PROCESS, INITIATIVE
VOUCHER PROGRAM WAS DRAFTED ON
WAS TO GET MONEY OUT OF
POLITICS.
THIS DOES THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
IT FAVORS A VERY SPECIFIC
GROUP.
IN 2011 "NEW YORK TIMES" OP-ED
SAID WE SHOULD IN TERMS OF
CURBING THE DEMOCRACY --
CITIZENS UNITED, THE ONLY WAY
THAT THE MONEY CANDIDATES WOULD
EXCEPT TO FINANCE HIS OR HER
CAMPAIGN WOULD BE DEMOCRACY
VOUCHERS OR CONTRIBUTIONS
CAPPED AT $100, NO PAC MONEY,
NO $2,500 CHECKS.
SMALL CONTRIBUTIONS ONLY.
IF THE VOTER DIDN'T USE THE
VOUCHER THE MONEY PASSED TO HIS
OR HER PARTY OR INDEPENDENT
BACK TO THE PUBLIC FUNDING
SYSTEM.
THAT IS SETTING UP A BOLD FIRM
LIMITS.
THAT IS PROGRESSIVE.
THIS LEGISLATION BEING
DISCUSSED TODAY WHILE AMENDED
COULD BE SO MUCH BETTER.
I AM ASKING COUNCIL NOT TO RUSH
THROUGH IT.
NEWLY ELECTED JUST GOT HERE.
THIS IS GOING TO LAY THE GROUND
ON THE FUTURE OF THE PLAYING
FIELD AND WILL VERY WELL YOUR
REELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD
COME AWAY WITH THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION TO GO TO CAMPAIGN
STAFF WITHOUT STUTTER OR NEED
OF EXPLANATION OF POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS WHO THIS IS
BENEFITING.
MY HOPE IS THE NEXT SICKLE OR
TWO.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> THANK YOU, PATRICK.
>> NEXT UP IS ALICE FOLLOWED BY
MEGHAN.
>> ALICE WALLED.
6514 NORTHWEST SEATTLE.
I AM HERE TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ TO BE
MOVING THIS ORDINANCE FORWARD
AND FOR TAKING SERIOUSLY THAT
AREA DEMOCRACY NEEDS TO BE
FIXED.
THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS YOU CAN
FIX IT IS TO DEAL WITH CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION, MAKING IT EASIER
FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE BIG
MONEY AND DON'T HAVE BIG MONEY
SUPPORTERS TO RUN FOR ELECTION
HAVING BEEN A CANDIDATE MYSELF
I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO
SPEND ALL YOUR TIME RAISING
MONEY TRYING TO BE COMPETITIVE
WITH THOSE WHO HAVE MORE MONEY
THAN YOU DO AND I JUST AM VERY
THANKFUL THAT THIS NEW COUNCIL
IS TAKING THIS UP AS ONE OF
THEIR VERY FIRST PRIORITIES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, ALICE.
>> NEXT UP IS MEGHAN FOLLOWED
BY STEVE.
>> I WAS BACK IN AUGUST ON THE
COMMITTEE OF ETHICS IN
ELECTIONS WHEN -- I THINK IT'S
HELD ON A CERTAIN WEDNESDAY OF
THE MONTH.
THE PLAN WAS THAT A SUPER PAC
CAN BE TEN PEOPLE AND OF THE 10
PEOPLE THEY CAN DONATE NO MORE
THAN $5,000 AND I KNOW UBER AND
-- UBER AND AIRBNB HAVE TIES TO
FOREIGN COMPANIES LIKE LESS
THAN 1% OR WHATEVER AND THEY
WERE DONATING TO THE ELECTIONS.
JUST THE FACT THAT ANYBODY
WOULD WANT TO DONATE OVER 5,000
TO AN ELECTION AND THAT WOULD
ULTIMATELY FORCE THEIR WIN
BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD BE
INUNDATED WITH WAVES OF, LIKE,
COMMERCIALS THAT WILL BRAIN
WASH THEM TO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY
THAT WILL NOT BE IN THEIR BEST
INTEREST ULTIMATELY IF THEY ARE
OF THE WORKING CLASS.
IT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA TO
LIMIT IT TO $5,000 PER PERSON
IN A SUPER PAC OF 10.
I KNOW SHAUNA COULDN'T TAKE
DEMOCRACY VOUCHERS BECAUSE SHE
HAD TO TAKE MONEY FROM OTHER
PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY WHO
ALIGNED WITH HER IDEAS AND, SO,
THAT NULLIFIES DEMOCRACY
VOUCHERS AND MAKES THEM INEPT.
TO FLEX YOUR MUST ASK YOU LA
TORE BY USING OUTLANDISH
AMOUNTS OF MONEY FROM SOMEBODY
WHO -- AMAZON WHEN THE WORKERS
WALKED OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE
PROTESTING THE CLIMATE
POLICIES, THEY WERE DISCIPLINED
IN A WAY THAT SAID REREAD THE
POLICY.
IF THEIR POLICY ISN'T FOR A
GREEN ECONOMY, THEN I THINK
PEOPLE SHOULD WALK OUT EVERY
FRIDAY AGAINST THEM AND THEIR
WORKERS IN FACTORIES.
WHAT IS SOMEBODY LIKE THAT
TRYING TO BUY OUR ELECTIONS.
HOW WOULD SOCIETY BE SHAPED IN
THE LAWS.
NOT PROGRESSIVE BUT RETRO
AGGRESSIVE.
ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR THE
IRANIAN PEOPLE. I
KNOW --
>> THANK YOU, MEGHAN.
>> I HOPE YOU VOTE FOR THE
PEOPLE IN IRAN TRYING TO VOTE
FROM CANADA INTO SEATTLE WHERE
THEORIES DENTS OF THE U.S.
>> THANK YOU, MEGHAN.
>> NEXT UP IS STEVE FOLLOWED BY
CINDY BLACK.
>> INTERESTING YOU WILL TRY TO
TAKE ON THIS PROBLEM AND AS
LONG AS WE ALLOW SHELL COULD
HAVE IMPORTANT RATIONS --
CORPORATIONS AND FOREIGN
DOMESTIC TO HIDE MONEY IN THIS
COUNTRY, GOOD LUCK ON CLEANING
THINGS UP.
I HAVE A FEELING AND MY
QUESTION IS, IS THIS MORE
REACTION TO AMAZON AND THE
GREAT AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY
SPENT WHICH MY FIRST THOUGHT
WAS NEVER HAS ANYBODY SPENT SO
MUCH MONEY AND GOT SO LITTLE
THEN I REMEMBERED SOME OTHER
ELECTIONS IN SEATTLE WHERE
SIMILAR THINGS HAVE HAPPENED
BEFORE.
UNTIL YOU START GETTING THE
FEDS, THE LAWYERS EMBARRASSED
AND THE STATE EMBARRASSED ABOUT
THE ALLOWING OF OUTRIGHT
CORRUPTION IF WHEN THIS
COUNTRY, IN OTHER WORDS, SHELL
CORPORATIONS, PEOPLE ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO KNOW WHO OWNS
THINGS, WHO REALLY SPENT THE
MONEY, THIS MIGHT BE AN
EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.
I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD AT
LEAST START AND TRY TO GO THE
NEXT STEP OF THE EMBARRASSMENT
THAT HAS TO GO FURTHER.
I HAVE BEEN MOST UNHAPPY ABOUT
THE LOWERING OF THE DEGREE OF
RESPECT NOR CITIZENS IN THIS
CITY.
LOOK AT THE THREE ORDINANCE.
WE ALMOST GOT ONE FOR THE LAST
COUNCIL BUT THE BIG HOLD UP WAS
YOU DIDN'T WANT DEVELOPERS TO
BE SUBJECT TO IT.
>> I NEED YOU TO STAY FOCUSED
ON THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA --
>> MONEY AND ACTIONS.
IF YOU DON'T THINK MONEY AND
ACTIONS ARE TIED TOGETHER, THEN
I THINK THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME
BECAUSE MONEY SEEMS TO BE VERY
CLOSE TO THE ACTIONS OF THIS
COUNCIL.
ANY ENTITY THAT HAS ZONING
POWER TYPICALLY GETS THE
BIGGEST AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY.
SEATTLE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION.
THIS CYCLE MAY HAVE BEEN
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BUT THAT'S
THE WAY IT IS.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
NEXT UP IS CINDY BLACK FOLLOWED
BY KEN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS CINDY BLACK.
I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
FIX DEMOCRACY FIRST.
WE ARE A NONPARK AT THE SAN PRO
DEMOCRACY ORGANIZATION THAT
WORKS ON LOCAL AND STATE PRO
DEMOCRACY AGENDAS AND
LEGISLATION AND WE WANT TO
FIRST OF ALL THANK
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ AND
THEIR STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK
THEY HAVE DONE IN CHAMPIONING
THIS LEGISLATION.
THE MAIN REASON WE WANTED TO
BRING THIS FORWARD IS BECAUSE
WE SAW THE IMPACT OF
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES LONG
BEFORE THIS ELECTION CYCLE AND
REALIZE THAT WE NEED TO DEFEND
DEMOCRACY AND BE AT THE
FOREFRONT IN SETTING LIMITS TO
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND
NOT BE AFRAID DO THIS.
WE ADVOCATED FOR THE VOUCHERS
FOR A LONG TIME.
IN FACT, FIX DEMOCRACY FIRST
USED TO BE WASHINGTON PUBLIC
CAMPAIGNS.
WE WORKED TO OVERTURN THE LAW
TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC FUNDING
OPENING THE DOOR FOR THE
SEATTLE VOUCHERS.
PUBLIC FUNDING OF CAMPAIGNS IS
IMPORTANT TO US.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
DEFEND THAT.
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES WE
NEED TO ADDRESS THAT.
THE VOUCHERS WERE NEVER MEANT
TO ADDRESS THE INDEPENDENT EX
PEN DI TERSE.
WE NEED A SEPARATE BILL.
WE THINK THE LEGISLATION WITH
LIMITS ON INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES AND EXPANDING
DISCLOSES SURE IS VERY
IMPORTANT TO ELECTIONS.
WE KNOW THE PEOPLE ARE BEHIND
IT.
WHEN WE DO POLLING ON THESE
NUMBERS, OVER 70 TO 80% OF THE
PEOPLE ARE BEHIND THESE TYPE OF
-- THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION.
SO, WE URGE THE COUNCIL TO PUT
IT FORWARD OUT OF COMMITTEE AND
UP FOR A VOTE NEXT WEEK AND
HOPEFULLY WE CAN BE, AS ALWAYS,
SEAT ABE A LEADER AND HOPEFULLY
CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND PLEASE PASS THIS FORWARD.
>> THANKS, CINDY.
NEXT UP IS KEN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS KEN DAMON.
I AM WITH FIXED DEMOCRACY FIRST
AND I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL
AND COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ FOR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS.
THE ONE THING YOU WILL FIND
AGREEMENT UPON ACROSS THE
POLITICAL SPECTRUM IN OUR
COUNTRY TODAY IS THAT MONEY
PLAYS TOO GREAT A ROLE IN THE
POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THAT SUPER
PACS THAT CAN RECEIVE UNLIMITED
AMOUNTS OF MONEY, WHICH IS WHAT
MAKES THEM SUPER HAVE BECOME
THE ACHILLES HEEL OF OUR DEM
MOCK I CAN'T SEE.
TODAY I THINK -- DEMOCRACY.
TODAY YOU WILL HEAR FROM FREE
SPEECH FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE
DISCOVERED THAT SUPER PACS
THEMSELVES HAVE AN ACHILLES
HEEL.
THANKS TO GROUPS LIKE FREE
SPEECH FOR PEOPLE, LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS AND FIXED
DEMOCRACY FIRSTED, YOU HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE AMONG THE
FIRST IN THE COUNTRY TO STRIKE
A BLOW AT THAT ACHILLES HEEL
BYPASSING LEGISLATION THAT
LIMITSTHE AMONT THAT CAN BE
GIVEN TO SUPER PACS AND
PRECIPITATING A SUPREME COURT
HEARING ON THIS ISSUE WHICH TO
MY KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE NEVER
ADDRESSED DIRECTLY.
ASSOCIATION I WOULD LIKE YOU TO
THINK OF THIS AS THE OTHER HALF
OF -- FIXED DEMOCRACY USES
TOOLS.
THIS IS THE OTHER HALF OF A
PAIR OF PLIERS.
PUBLIC FUNDING IS ONE SIDE.
ELIMINATING EASY WAYS TO GO
AROUND THE REASONABLE RULES FOR
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IS THE
OTHER.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.
I URGE YOU NOT TO PASS UP THIS
OPPORTUNITY.
IT'S TOO IMPORTANT.
IT HAS TOO MUCH POTENTIAL TO
HAVE NATIONAL IMPACT AND WHAT
WE NEED NOW REALLY IS NATIONAL
LEADERSHIP.
YOU GUYS ARE IN THE POSITION TO
DO IT.
DON'T HESITATE, DON'T PASS IT
DOWN THE ROAD.
DON'T KICK THE CAN DOWN THE
ROAD.
WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT WAS THE LAST PERSON WHO
SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
IS THERE ANY ONE IN THE
AUDIENCE THAT INTENDED TO SIGN
UP AND PROVIDE PUBLIC TESTIMONY
BUT DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO DO SO?
SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL GO AHEAD
AND CLOSE OUT THE PERIOD OF
PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE WILL GO
AHEAD AND MOVE INTO THE ITEMS
OF BUSINESS ON OUR AGENDA WHICH
ARE THE AFOREMENTIONED THREE
BILLS.
I WILL ASK VIE TO READ THE
SHORT TITLES OF ALL THREE BILLS
INTO THE RECORD FOR DISCUSSION.
>> AGENDA ITEM ONE, COUNCIL
11730, ORDINANCE RELATED TO
ELECTIONS LIMITING
CONTRIBUTIONS TO INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE FOR BRIEFING AND
DISCUSSION.
AGENDA ITEM 2 COUNSEL BILL
119731, ORDINANCE RELATED TO
PROHIBITING.
[ INAUDIBLE ] OR CONTRIBUTING
TO CAMPAIGNS.
AND -- SORRY.
AGENDA ITEM 3, COUNCIL BILL
119732 ORDINANCE RELATED TO
POLITICAL ADVERTISING AND
QUALIFIED PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
EXPANDING COMMERCIAL
ADVERTISERS DUTY TO MAINTAIN
RECORDS REGARDING POLITICAL
ADVERTISING AND QUALIFIED
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
>> THANK YOU, VIE.
>> WE WILL GO AHEAD KICK OFF
THE DISCUSSION HERE.
WE HAVE A PRESENTATION AND
MEMO.
INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THEN WE
WILL START GOING THROUGH THE
PRESENTATION.
>> ALL RIGHT.
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
AS MENTIONED, WE ARE DISCUSSING
THIGH SEPARATE BILLS.
THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY ALL PART
OF ONE BILL AND IN BETWEEN THE
LAST COMMITTEE MEETING IN
DECEMBER THEY HAVE BEEN SPLIT
INTO THIGH BILLS TO BE ACTED ON
SEPARATELY.
I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT
EXISTING CONDITIONS.
AND SOME OF THIS WILL BE
FAMILIAR TO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO
WERE AT THE MEETING IN
DECEMBER.
BUT SPENDING IN SEATTLE'S
ELECTIONS, SUMMARY OF THE
CURRENT CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REGULATIONS AND THEN TALK ABOUT
THE BILLS INDIVIDUALLY.
THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
CONTRIBUTION OVER THE LAST 10
YEARS.
IN 2011 THERE WERE NO
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
THIS PAST YEAR WE SAW OVER $4
MILLION IN INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES.
AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE
DECREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
-- DIRECT CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
TO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ADDED
THE DEMOCRACY VOUCHER PROGRAM.
OVERALL THE 2019 RACE SET A
RECORD FOR HOW MUCH WAS SPENT
ON COUNCIL CAMPAIGNS.
AND ALMOST HALF OF THOSE FUNDS
WERE CONTRIBUTED TO INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE COMMITTEES RATHER
THAN TO DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS TO
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
>> IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR
SLIDE, THE DATA THAT IS HERE IS
JUST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
RACES.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE AT THIS
JUNCTURE DATA ON THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S RACE OR THE MAYORAL
RACE.
IS THAT INFORMATION THAT IS
AVAILABLE TO US THAT YOU COULD
COMPILE AND CREATE A SIMILAR
CHART FOR.
>> YES.
I WAS TRYING TO KEEP THINGS AS
SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE
CHANGE IN CONFIGURATION EVERY
CAMPAIGN CYCLE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL RACES, IT'S DIFFICULT.
I WAS TRYING TO LIMIT THE
NUMBER OF VARIABLES.
>> I WOULD ASK THAT YOU COMPILE
THAT INFORMATION FOR ALL OF THE
CAMPAIGNS THAT WE HAVE SEEN
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES FOR
AND THAT THE DEMOCRACY PROGRAM
APPLIES TO.
THE MAYORAL RACE ISN'T GOING TO
BE SUBJECT TOPED DEMOCRACY
VOUCHER PROGRAM UNTIL 2021 BUT
I THINK THERE IS DATA THAT
WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE
LEGISLATIVE RECORD AND TO OUR
THINKING AS POLICYMAKERS
PARTICULARLY AS THE RELATES TO
BILL. DEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
>> THERE -- A LARGE CHUNK OF
THE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES
WERE PROVIDED TO CIVIC ALLIANCE
FOR SOUND ECONOMY WHICH IS THE
PAC FOR THE SEATTLE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE.
BUT A NUMBER OF OTHER PACS
RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT FUNDING
AND THERE ARE A RANGE OF
DIFFERENT INTERESTS REPRESENTED
BY THE PACS, BOTH BUSINESS,
UNION, AND THEN SMALLER PACS
LIKE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR SMART
STREETS OR DISTRICT ONE
NEIGHBORS FOR SMALL BUSINESS
HAVE LOCALIZED OR SPECIFIC
INTERESTS IN THE ELECTION.
>> ON THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE, IS
THERE DATA AVAILABLE FROM THE
SEATTLE ETHICS AND ELECT
COMMISSION THAT TELLS US WHATED
AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT IS
FOR THESE DONATIONS THAT WE SEE
TO THESE DIFFERENT INTERESTS?
>> YEAH.
>> NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND
THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF THE
CONTRIBUTION?
>> YEAH.
OVERALL -- I WAS LOOKING AT
THIS DATA.
THERE WERE 1901 CONTRIBUTIONS
TO PACS IN 2019.
AND 95 OF THOSE WERE OVER
$5,000.
>> WOW.
>> SO, 5% OF THEM WERE OVER
$5,000 AND THE REST UNDER
5,000.
>> THE REST WERE UNDER 5,000.
>> 5,000 OR LESS.
>> YEAH.
AND THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO GET EVEN MORE
GRANULAR DETAIL PARTICULARLY
THOSE UNDER 5,000 AND IF THERE
IS A WAY FOR US TO ANALYZE AND
EVALUATE IF THERE IS A
CORRELATION BETWEEN VOLUME OF
NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE
AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION
ACROSS THAT SPECTRUM THAT WOULD
BE HELPFUL.
>> YEAH.
COLLEAGUES, FEEL FREE TO SIGNAL
IF YOU HAVE OTHER REQUESTS FOR
INFORMATION.
AGAIN, WHEN WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE PIECES IN
PARTICULAR, WE HAVE ONGOING
WORK TO DO IN THIS SPACE SO
THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO
FLAG SOME ADDITIONAL DATA OR
ANALYSIS THAT YOU WOULD -- AS
WE CONTINUE TO BUILD THE SELECT
TUR AS TO WHY IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR US TO IMPLEMENT REASONABLE
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.
>> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT STAT
AGAIN.
MY STAFF ASKED YOU FOR THAT,
TOO.
WHAT PERCENTAGE WERE ABOVE
5,000.
>> 5% ABOVE 5,000.
>> WHICH IS WHAT YOU ESTIMATED.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I
WOULD LIKE TO MENTION HERE, I
AM JUST REALLY FULLY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT LARGE
CORPORATIONS, EVEN UNDERPASS
SAGE OF THIS LAW WILL STILL BE
ABLE TO ENGAGE IN BIG MONEY
SPENDING TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES?
THEY WILL STILL BE ABLE TO MAKE
MILLION-DOLLAR POLITICAL
EXPENDITURES, THEY JUST WON'T
BE ABLE TO GIVE TO A PAC.
THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS LEGISLATION IS ABOUT
ADDRESSING QUID PRO QUO
CORRUPTION AND THE THREAT OF
IT.
WE SHOULDN'T KID OURSELVES THAT
IT'S GOING TO, QUOTE, GET BIG
MONEY OUT OF POLITICS BECAUSE
WITH THE PASSAGE OF A BILL LIKE
THIS IT'S LIKELY THAT WE WILL
SEE SOME OF THAT SHIFT WHERE
LARGE CORPORATIONS WILL
DIRECTLY FINANCE ELECTION
ACTIVITIES BUT WHAT WE ARE
REALLY TRYING TO GET AT IS
MAKING SURE THAT IN DOING SO
THAT THEY AREN'T EXTRACTING
COMMITMENTS FROM PEOPLE RUNNING
FOR OFFICE.
>> RIGHT.
STRONG COMPONENT OF
TRANSPARENCY THAT I THINK FROM
A POLICY PERSPECTIVE WORKS
AGAINST THE APPEARANCE OR THE
PERCEPTION AND ACTUAL
CORRUPTION WITHIN CAMPAIGNS
EITHER THROUGH INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE ACTIVITY OR THROUGH
DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CAMPAIGNS AND SO I THINK THAT
IS AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE.
>> OKAY.
>> OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS, THE
LARGEST BY FAR WAS THE
CONTRIBUTION BY AMAZON WHICH
LISTED NATIONAL NEWS AND
DENUNCIATION FROM CANDIDATES
FOR PRESIDENT.
BUT WE SAW OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
MAKE LARGE INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES PARTICULARLY SCIU
AND NIKE HERE.
>> BUT, AGAIN, WHEN WE GO BACK
TO THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF
2019 POLITICAL COMMITTEES,
THAT'S THE SLIDE THREE, IF
WESTERN TO DIG INTO, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE CONTRIBUTIONS AND
THE SOURCE OF CONTRIBUTIONS
FORECAST AND PEOPLE FOR SEATTLE
WHICH ARE THE TWO BIG NUMBERS
ON THAT CHART, IS THERE -- IS
THERE A WAY FOR US TO DO THAT
AND BE ABLE TO SORT OF GET THAT
GRANULAR DETAIL ABOUT WHO THOSE
CONTRIBUTORS ARE IN BECAUSE I
THINK THAT THAT IS A GOOD LAYER
OF INFORMATION OVER THE SECOND
-- THE NEXT SLIDE WHICH IS
WOULD GIVE US A BETTER PICTURE
OF WHO IS -- THE ACTUAL WHO IN
TERMS OF CONTRIBUTORS ARE
MAKING THE DONATIONS AS OPPOSED
TO ORGANIZATIONALLY WHO IS
MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS TO
POLITICAL EXPENDITURE
ACTIVITIES.
>> SO, I HAVE STARTED TO PULL
THAT OUT FOR THESE TOP
CONTRIBUTORS.
AMAZON, VULCAN AND THE
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, EXPEDIA, NAP,
R.C.HENDRON AND HENDRON
HOLDINGS CONTRIBUTING TO CASE.
UFCW PAC --
>> THAT'S WHAT THE COLOR CODING
IS.
GOT IT.
>> AND, SO, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS
AND SEE ALL THE DARK BLUE,
MAYBE WE CAN COME UP WITH MORE
THAN JUST BLUE.
SO, THE DARKEST BLUE SHADE, ALL
OF THOSE DONATIONS WERE MADE TO
CAPE AND THEN -- AS IT GETS --
THE GRADE YAGS OF COLOR CHANGES
THAT INDICATES WHICH OF THOSE
CONTRIBUTIONS IS GOING TO WHICH
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.
>> RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
>> BUT, ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS
ABOUT SEATTLE'S ELECTION LAWS,
WE REQUIRE FULL DISCLOSURE OF
CONTRIBUTION TO INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE COMMITTEES.
WE KNOW $30 CONTRIBUTORS TO AN
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
COMMITTEE, WE KNOW WHO THOSE
CONTRIBUTORS ARE.
>> IF I LOOK AT THE AMAZON.COM
NUMBER OF $1.5 MILLION, ARE
THEY REQUIRED UNDER CURRENT
CODE -- IS AMAZON UNDER CURRENT
CODE TO DISCLOSE WHO
CONTRIBUTED THE $1.5 MILLION,
IF IT'S MULTIPLE PEOPLE AS
OPPOSED TO JUST THE CORPORATE
ENTITY.
>> THE CORPORATE ENTITY IS
CONTRIBUTING AS A CORPORATION.
INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVES FROM THE
CORPORATION WOULD BE INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTORS AND LISTED
SEPARATELY.
>> OKAY.
>> I PROBABLY CAN'T IDENTIFY --
WELL, WE DO HAVE SOME
INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE
CONTRIBUTORS WORK.
SO, WE MAY BE ABLE TO DIG DOWN
AND IDENTIFY WHERE PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS ARE
WORKING FOR AMAZON OR NOT, FOR
EXAMPLE.
>> AS IT RELATESTO PARTICULAR
CONTRIBUTORS MAKING
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PACS AS
OPPOSED DIRECTLY TO CAMPAIGNS?
>> RIGHT.
AND WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION
FOR DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CAMPAIGNS.
>> IN THAT 5% OF GIVING THAT IS
ABOVE $5,000, IS THAT BY NUMBER
OF COLORS OR NUMBER OF
CONTRIBUTIONS?
>> NUMBER OF DOLLARS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CAN WE DO NUMBER OF
CONTRIBUTIONS AS WELL?
>> MAYBE.
I THINK IF -- MOST CONTRIBUTORS
TO INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
COMMITTEES MAKE A SINGLE
CONTRIBUTION, AMAZON MADE THREE
CONTRIBUTIONS OVER THE COURSE
OF THE CAMPAIGN CYCLE BUT
GENERALLY ONE, MAYBE 2.
INDIVIDUAL BUT IT CAN BE A
CORPORATION. A UNION.
A POLITICAL PARTY.
ALMOST ANYTHING.
CONTRIBUTION IS GIVING
SOMETHING AND NOT EXPECT BEING
A RETURN FOR IT, BASICALLY.
>> POLITICAL COMMITTEE IS A
GROUP THAT INTENDS TO RECEIVE
CONTRIBUTIONS OR MAKE
EXPENDITURES IN SUPPORT OF OR
OPPOSITION TO A CANDIDATE OR
BALLOT PROPOSITION.
THERE ARE POLITICAL COMMITTEES
THAT ARE NOT SUPER PACS THAT DO
COORDINATE WITH CANDIDATES, BUT
A SUPER PACK OR WHAT THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD DEFINE AS AN
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
COMMITTEE IS ONE THAT DOES NOT
COORDINATE WITH A CAMPAIGN.
AND THEN, INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE IS A EXPENDITURE ON
BEHALF OF OR OPPOSING A
CAMPAIGN WHEN IT'S COMPLETELY
INDEPENDENT OF THE CAMPAIGN AND
IS NOT A CONTRIBUTION TO THAT
CAMPAIGN.
>> SEATTLE'S CONTRIBUTION
CAMPAIGN LIMITS WERE ADOPTED IN
20 - 2015 WITH THE HONEST
ELECTIONS INITIATIVE.
FOR CANDIDATES THAT CHOOSE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE DEMOCRACY
VOUCHER PROGRAM, THE LIMIT IS
$250.
FOR CANDIDATES NOT
PARTICIPATING, IT IS $500.
THERE ARE NO LIMITS ON
CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL
COMMITTEES UNDER CURRENT LAW.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTH
CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL
COMMITTEES MUST BE DISCLOSED
AND CAMPAIGNS MAY NOT
PARTICIPATE IN INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES.
SEATTLE CURRENTLY HAS NO
REGULATIONS REGARDING FOREIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT THEY ARE
LIMITED UNDER NATIONAL LAW.
FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FOREIGN
NATIONALS AND FOREIGN
PRINCIPALS IN CONNECTION WITH
ANY ELECTION.
DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES OF
FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS ARE
ELIGIBLE TO CONTRIBUTE IF THE
FOREIGN PARENT DOESN'T FINANCE
ELECTION RELATED EXPENDITURES.
AGAIN, THERE ARE SOME WAYS THAT
FOREIGN OWNED CORPORATIONS
RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES
CAN CONTRIBUTE TO CAMPAIGNS.
OR INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
>> AGAIN, I WANT TO GO BACK TO
THE SLIDE.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
WHAT WE ARE, I THINK THE NUANCE
HERE IS THAT THERE IS EXISTING
FEDERAL LAW THAT REGULATES IN
THIS SPACE THAT APPLIES TO
FEDERAL ELECTION, ELECTORAL
ACTIVITY.
>> IT ALSO APPLIES TO LOCAL
ELECTIONS.
>> BUT, WE DO NOT HAVE CURRENTLY
IN SEATTLE, A MECHANISM BY
WHICH TO EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE
AND ENFORCE WHETHER OR NOT
THOSE FEDERAL LAWS ARE BEING
UPHELD.
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
OF THE REALLY, WHAT WE ARE
TRYING TO DO THROUGH THIS
PARTICULAR, ONE OF THE COUNCIL
BILLS IS EFFECTIVELY IMPORT
EXISTING PROHIBITIONS AND
FEDERAL LAW TO PROVIDE OUR
SEATTLE ETHICS AND ELECTIONS
COMMISSION THE TOOLS THEY NEED
TO BE ABLE TO BOTH UNDERSTAND,
INVESTIGATE, AND ENFORCE
CURRENT FEDERAL LAW IN OUR
LOCAL ELECTIONS.
>> YEAH.
IT ALSO GOES MORE BROADLY AND
TOUCHES MORE TYPES OF FOREIGN
INFLUENCE IN CAMPAIGNS AND
CONTRIBUTIONS.
>> BY DEFINING A PERCENTAGE OF
HOW WE BELIEVE FOREIGN
INFLUENCE MIGHT SEEP INTO
DECISION-MAKING RELATED TO
MAKING ELECTORAL CONTRIBUTION
DECISIONS.
>> RIGHT.
>> JUST A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES, GOING
ON THE SAME THING.
JUST SO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY
AS WELL.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE
IS STILL AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL,
A LOOPHOLE WHERE A FEDERAL,
WHERE A PACK THAT IS MOSTLY
FUNDED BY A COMPANY THAT MAY BE
OWNED BY A FOREIGN COMPANY CAN
STILL, UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND
THAT IS ALLOWED, HAVE A PACK.
AND THIS ORDINANCE WOULD CLOSE
THAT LOOPHOLE.
IS THAT A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING?
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S
CORRECT.
>> IN THAT RESPECT, IT WOULD
ALSO BROADEN THE PROHIBITIONS
ON THE FOREIGN INFLUENCE'S
CORPORATION, INTERFERING IN
LOCAL POLITICS THROUGH A PAC ?
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> WISH?
>> IN TERMS OF - ADVERTISING,
COMMERCIAL ADVERTISERS,
COMPANIES THAT ACCEPT MONEY TO
ADVERTISE IN THE POLITICAL REALM
, REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN
DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT
UNDER CURRENT CITY LAW. IT
NEEDS TO INCLUDE NAMES AND
ADDRESSES OF PERSONS LACING AN
ADVERTISEMENT.
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE
ADVERTISEMENT, COST AND METHOD
OF PAYMENT.
THESE REGULATIONS ONLY APPLY TO
CAMPAIGNS, NOT LEGISLATIVE
ACTIVITY OR ANYTHING THAT
HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF SORT OF TWO
YEARS OF THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD.
THEY MUST BE OPEN FOR PUBLIC
INSPECTION DURING NORMAL
BUSINESS HOURS. AND, DURING THE
ELECTION AND FOR AT LEAST 3
YEARS AFTER THE ELECTION.
AS YOU MAY HAVE READ, THERE HAS
BEEN DIFFICULTY ACTUALLY SEEING
THOSE RECORDS FOR SOME
ORGANIZATION, COMPANIES,
ACCEPTING POLITICAL ADVERTISING
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
>> SO, THIS IS A EXISTING
FRAMEWORK.
>> RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
>> AND THEN, MOVING TO PENALTIES
FOR BREAKING THESE LAWS.
THE ETHICS AND ELECTIONS
COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
LEVY CIVIL PENALTIES.
UP TO $5000, AND RETURN OF THE
CONTRIBUTION. FOR AN ILLEGAL
CONTRIBUTION, THE PENALTY CAN
BE THE GREATER OF EITHER TWO
TIMES A CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT, OR
$5000 AND RETURN OF THE
CONTRIBUTION.
ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTION.
>> COUNCILMAN HER BOLD?
>> THANK YOU.
YOU MENTIONED JUST A MOMENT AGO
THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME
DIFFICULTY IN CONFIRMING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TRANSPARENCY PART OF THIS, OF
CURRENT REGULATIONS, AND BEING
ABLE TO REVIEW THE BOOKS.
GIVEN THAT THERE ARE CIVIL
PENALTIES, ALREADY IN THE
EXISTING LAW, CAN YOU JUST TALK
A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY
THAT IS?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHY THE
COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK HAVE
HAD A HARD TIME -
>> I MEAN, WHY HAVE WE NOT
ENFORCE THOSE REGULATIONS.
>> SO, OUR LAWS MIRRORS STATE
LAWS ON THIS ISSUE.
AND, THE STATE HAS BEEN
ENFORCING THE REGULATIONS ON
THOSE AND HAS BROUGHT THOSE
COMPANIES TO COURT.
SO, IT HAS BEEN PROCEEDED AT
THE STATE LEVEL RATHER THAN THE
LOCAL LEVEL.
>> I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> WITH THIS NEW ORDINANCE, HOW
BIG IS OUR DEPARTURE FROM THAT
STATE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK?
IN WOULD WOULD BE IN A SPACE
WHERE THERE IS THINGS THAT ONLY
WE CAN ENFORCED UNDER THE
MUNICIPAL CODE NOW AND THAT WE
CAN'T RELY ON THE STATE TO
ENFORCE?
>> YEAH.
SO, THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
ADVERTISING BILL WOULD DIVIDE
MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO
BE RETAINED.
SO, IF A COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER
RETAINS SOMETHING IS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MORE
GENERAL REGULATIONS THAT WE
JUST TALKED ABOUT, THE NAMES
AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS
PLACING AN ADVERTISEMENT,
NATURE AND EXTENT OF
ADVERTISING, COST AND METHOD OF
PAYMENT, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, DOES
NOT INCLUDE A COPY OF THE
ADVERTISEMENT, WHICH IS ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE
REQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION,
THEN THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION
OF THE CITY LAW AND NOT THE
STATE LAW.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND I THINK JUST TO PUT A
FINER POINT ON THAT, NOTHING IN
THIS BILL WOULD PRECLUDE THE
STATE FROM DOING THEIR OWN
INVESTIGATION ON EITHER
PARALLEL OR SUBSEQUENT TRACK,
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
SO, OUR PROPOSAL IN THIS
ORDINANCE WOULD SIMPLY CREATE
STRICTER REQUIREMENTS THAN WHAT
CURRENTLY EXISTS UNDER STATE
LAW?
>> RIGHT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> GIVEN THAT ETHICS AND
ELECTIONS IS CURRENTLY USING
ITS AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE AND
IS INSTEAD DEFERRING TO THE
STATE'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE, I
WOULD LOVE, WISH, IF YOU CAN
GET MORE INFORMATION FROM
ETHICS AND ELECTIONS ABOUT
WHETHER THESE CHANGES WOULD
RESULT IN THEIR BEING MORE
ACTIVE IN ENFORCEMENT, RATHER
THAN DEFERRING TO THE STATE.
>> ONE THING WE HAVE NOT HEARD
FROM THE ETHICS AND ELECTIONS
COMMISSION, AND IT IS REFLECTED
IN THE FISCAL NOTE FOR AT LEAST
A COUPLE OF THE BILLS, IS THAT
IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THESE
BILLS, THEY PROBABLY WILL NEED
MORE INVESTIGATORS.
>> THAT, TOO.
>> SO, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER
POTENTIALLY ADDING ANOTHER
POSITION THERE TO HELP TO
ENFORCE THESE LEGISLATION.
>> IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S
ALREADY LISTED IN THE FISCAL
NOTE?
>> NO.
AT THE LEVEL LISTED IN THE
FISCAL NO.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT THE
FISCAL NOTE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT
THE EXPRESSED NEED BY THE
COMMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES FOR INVESTIGATIONS.
SO, SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T NEED
TO ADD MORE THAN WHAT IS
CURRENTLY THERE AT THIS POINT.
>> RIGHT.
RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
SO, MOVING ON TO THE THREE
CAMPAIGNS ACTS.
THE FIRST ONE - 119730
ADDRESSES INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES.
IT DEFINES INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE AS A
POLITICAL COMMITTEE THAT
INTENDS TO MAKE, OR THAT DOES
MAKE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
AND IT PLACES A LIMIT ON
CONTRIBUTIONS TO INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE COMMITTEES OF $5000.
IT ALSO CREATES A NEW CATEGORY
OF CLINICAL COMMITTEE CALLED
THE LIMITED CONTRIBUTOR
COMMITTEE.
THESE ARE COMMITTEES THAT
RECEIVE A LARGE NUMBER OF SMALL
DOLLAR CONTRIBUTIONS.
LESS THAN $500, OR FROM ANOTHER
LIMITED CONTRIBUTOR COMMITTEE.
AND, FROM A LARGER NUMBER OF
PERSONS.
SO, AT LEAST 150 PERSONS FOR A
DISTRICT COUNCIL RACE AND UP TO
600 PERSONS FOR LIMITED
CONTRIBUTOR COMMITTEES THAT
WANT TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION IN
THE CONTEXT OF A MAYORAL RACE.
AND, THERE WOULD BE NO LIMITS
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THESE LCC'S
TO OTHER MONOCLE COMMITTEES.
>> AT THE LAST COMMITTEE
MEETING, WE DISCUSSED INCENTIVE
AMENDMENTS TO THE LIMITED
CONTRIBUTOR COMMITTEE IDEA.
SETTING A LIMIT ON
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LCC SENT
$10,000, COMPARED TO THE $5000
THAT OTHER PERSONS WOULD BE
HELD TO, REQUIRED REQUIRING
LIMITED CONTRIBUTOR COMMITTEES
THAT MEET THE DEFINITION AND
LOWERING BOTH THE MONETARY
AMOUNT AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS
CONTRIBUTING TO THE COMMITTEE
THAT DEFINED THE COMMITTEE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT COLLEAGUES?
OKAY.
SO, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT
WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION AND A
SECOND TO ADOPT AND INCLUDE IN
THE BASE LEGISLATION CORRECT,
LISH ?
>> CORRECT.
>> COLLEAGUES, I WILL JUST SAY
ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT,
WE HAD A PRETTY ROBUST
CONVERSATION ABOUT IT AT THE
DECEMBER 16 MEETING OF MY
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR.
I RECOGNIZE THAT SOME OF YOU
WERE NOT HERE FOR THAT.
BUT, EFFECTIVELY, WHAT WE ARE
TRYING TO DO HERE FROM A POLICY
PERSPECTIVE IS TWOFOLD.
ONE IS CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF
CORRUPTION, OR THE PERCEPTION
OF CORRUPTION, IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR US TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THERE IS AT LEAST NATIONALLY,
INFORMATION THAT TELLS US THAT
WHEN THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE
LARGE FROM A SMALL VOLUME OF
PEOPLE, THAT THAT DOES HAVE A
NEGATIVE IMPACT, IN TERMS OF
PEOPLE BELIEVING THAT
CORRUPTION HAS SEEPED INTO THE
ELECTORAL DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
SO, THE THEORY BEHIND THE
LIMITED CONTRIBUTOR COMMITTEE
IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT IF THE
TRUE INTENT HERE IS TO ADDRESS
THE PARENTS AND APPEARANCE OF
CORRUPTION WE NEED TO PROVIDE A
MODEL BY WHICH LARGE VOLUME OF
DONORS AT A SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNT
ARE STILL ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN
THIS POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
BUT, IN A MANNER THAT DOESN'T
CREATE THAT PERCEPTION OF
CORRUPTION.
SO, I HAVE REALLY SORT OF
STRUGGLED WITH WHERE TO SET THE
NUMBER, IN TERMS OF HOW TO
QUALIFY FOR LIMITED CONTRIBUTOR
COMMITTEE.
AND TO HAVE LANDED ON THINKING
THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING A $500
OR LESS CONTRIBUTION, THAT IT
WOULD BE WISER FOR US, IN TERMS
OF ADDRESSING THAT APPEARANCE
OF CORRUPTION, CONCERN, TO
LOWER THE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT
TO $100 OR LESS FOR EACH PERSON
WHO IS CONTRIBUTING.
LIKEWISE, MAKING SURE THAT WE
CAN SEE FROM LCC'S THAT THEY
ARE SUPPORTED BY A LARGER
VOLUME OF PEOPLE IS IMPORTANT,
SO, WE HAVE SET THE NUMBER AT
100 AND HAVE STANDARDIZED THAT
NUMBER FOR ALL OF THE RACES IT
WOULD APPLY TO.
SO, DISTRICT COUNCIL RACES, AT-
LARGE COUNCIL RACES, CITY
ATTORNEY RACES AND MAYORAL
RACES WOULD ALL BE UNDER THE
SAME STANDARD.
I THINK THAT WILL HELP TO
BOLSTER THE COMMISSION'S
ABILITY TO JUST STANDARDIZE HOW
THEY ARE GOING TO ENFORCE AND
INVESTIGATE THIS PARTICULAR
COMPONENT OF THE LEGISLATION.
AND IT WILL ALSO, AGAIN, MEET
THE POLICY DEMANDS OF WANTING
TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
STILL ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE
IS A LESSER CONCERN AS IT
RELATES TO THE APPEARANCE OF
CORRUPTION WHEN WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT POLITICAL ACTIVITY THAT
IS BEING FUELED BY SMALL DOLLAR
DONATIONS FROM A LARGE NUMBER,
LARGE VOLUME OF PEOPLE.
SO, THAT IS WHERE THE 100 BY
100 MODEL CAME FROM, FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, TO BE ABLE TO DO
THIS.
THE SECOND COMPONENT THAT I
WOULD SAY IS MOTIVATING THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IS AROUND,
YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THERE IS A
LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
LCC'S.
TO $10,000.
ORIGINALLY WE HAD INTRODUCED A
BILL THAT WOULD, ONCE YOU
QUALIFY AS AN LCC, THERE WOULD
BE NO LIMITS TO THE LCC, AND
TERMS OF CONTRIBUTIONS AT LCC'S
COULD MAKE OTHER POLITICAL
COMMITTEES WHO ARE ENGAGING IN
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
WE HAD HEARD CONCERNS FROM
ETHICS AND ELECTION COMMISSION
AS WELL AS ADVOCATES IN THIS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM SPACE,
THAT THAT COULD BE AN EXCEPTION
THAT SWALLOWED THE RULE AND THE
INTENT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO
GET AT, WHICH WAS AGAIN,
LIMITING POLITICAL COMMITTEE
CONTRIBUTIONS IN A WAY THAT
WOULD TRULY AND MEANINGFULLY
ADDRESS THE QUID PRO QUO
CORRUPTION CONCERNS AND
APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION.
SO, AS A RESULT OF THAT, I HAVE
MOVED FROM HAVING NO LIMITS,
ONCE YOU QUALIFY AS AN LCC, TO
HAVING A LIMIT, BUT THE LIMIT
WOULD BE AT $10,000, AS OPPOSED
TO THE $5000 LIMIT THAT WOULD
APPLY TO NON-LCC QUALIFIED
COMMITTEES.
>> SO, THAT IS IN A NUTSHELL,
THE MOTIVATION, THE INTENT
BEHIND THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT
, COUNSEL THE 119730, AND LISH
WAS NODDING AS I WAS SPEAKING,
SO I ASSUME I HAVE ACCURATELY
DESCRIBED THE POLICY AS IT IS
REFLECTED IN THE AMENDMENT, BUT
LISH, LET ME KNOW IF I HAVE
MISCHARACTERIZED ANYTHING.
>> THE ONLY OTHER THING TO ADD
IS THAT REQUIRING THE COMMITTEES
TO CERTIFY THAT THEY MEET THE
DEFINITION WILL MAKE IT MUCH
EASIER FOR THE ETHICS AND
ELECTIONS COMMISSION TO ENFORCE
THE REGULATIONS.
>> SO, SIMILAR TO SOME
OBLIGATIONS THAT EXIST IN OTHER
PLACES IN LEGISLATION,
PARTICULARLY AROUND THE FOREIGN
INFLUENCE OPERATIONS, WE ARE
SHIFT IN THE BURDEN TO THE
PEOPLE ENGAGING IN THE
POLITICAL ACTIVITY TO PROVIDE
US WITH THE CERTIFICATION UNDER
THE PENALTY OF PERJURY.
THAT THEY IN FACT MEET THE
DEFINITIONS HERE, I THINK REALLY
CLEANS UP THE ABILITY FOR THE
COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO DO
ENFORCEMENT WITHOUT POTENTIALLY
STEPPING INTO OTHER PRIVACY
CONCERNS THAT WILL EXIST FROM A
VERY DIVERSE SET OF
STAKEHOLDERS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
CONCERNS?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> I WAS A PERSON WHO AT THE
LAST COMMITTEE MEETING NEEDED
SOME TIME WITH THIS AMENDMENT
AFTER RECEIVING SEVERAL
BRIEFINGS ON THE INTENT, AND THE
YOU KNOW, THE WISDOM REALLY OF
LOWERING THE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT
IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THESE
LIMITED CONTRIBUTOR COMMITTEES
ARE ENTITIES THAT AREN'T ABLE TO
BASICALLY CREATE A NEW LOOPHOLE
. I AM MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE
WITH THIS PROPOSED CHANGE TO
THE LEGISLATION THAT I WAS LAST
TIME.
I BELIEVE WE ARE NOT GOING TO
VOTE THIS BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE, BUT IS IT YOUR
INTENT TO VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENTS?
>> YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
THE AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO
THE BASE LEGISLATION, EVEN
THOUGH I WON'T BE MOVING AT
THIS POINT TO VOTE THIS
PARTICULAR BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY.
>> OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS
FOR US TO ADDRESS BEFORE I MOVE
THE AMENDMENT?
OKAY.
I'M GOING TO MOVE AMENDMENT 1
TO CANCEL THE 119730 AS
DESCRIBED.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED?
NO OPPOSITION.
SO, THE MOTION CARRIES, AND THE
AMENDMENT 1 TO COUNSEL BILL 9730
PASSES AND WILL BE INCORPORATED
INTO THE BASE LEGISLATION.
SO, BEFORE WE MOVED, I KNOW WE
ARE GETTING SET TO SHIFT GEARS
INTO THE NEXT COUNSEL BILL.
AGAIN, I JUST REALLY WANT TO
CLARIFY THAT WE HAVE SOME
ADDITIONAL WORK TO DO, TO BE
ABLE TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE
LEGISLATIVE RECORD AS IT
RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR
COUNSEL BILL 119730, WHICH
SPECIFICALLY RELATES TO
POLITICAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY OR
SUPER PACS AS WE HAVE BEEN
COMMONLY REFERRING TO THEM.
I WAS HOPING THAT WE WOULD BE
ABLE TO HAVE THAT LEGISLATIVE
RECORD MUCH BETTER BUILT BY
NOW.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT MORE
QUESTIONS HAVE COME UP.
AND, INCLUDING BY SOME OF OUR
NEWEST COUNCILMEMBERS, AND
REALLY APPRECIATE THE IMMEDIATE
ENGAGEMENT ON THE POLICY ISSUES
HERE, AND I THINK WE WOULD ALL
BENEFIT FROM HAVING JUST A
LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DEVELOP
THAT LEGISLATIVE RECORD TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE HAVE ANY PENDING
LEGAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED, AND
THEN LASTLY, TO CONTINUE TO
ENGAGE IN SOME STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGE - ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT WITH, PARTICULARLY
WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE GOING
TO BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THIS
NEW FRAMEWORK OF LAWS, ONCE A
PASS.
SO, I AM HOPING THAT, FOR THE
FIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR, WE
WILL BE ABLE TO DO ALL OF THOSE
THREE THINGS AND BE ABLE TO
BUILD THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD,
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL
THOSE LEGAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED
FOR US AS POLICYMAKERS, AND
THEN COMPLETE STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT SO THAT FIRST THING
IN QUARTER 2, WE ARE ALL IN A
POSITION TO FEEL EXTREMELY
COMFORTABLE ABOUT THE
DEFENSIBILITY OF WHAT WE ARE
DOING AND WHY WE ARE DOING IT
AND THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR,
STATURES ESTABLISHED
LEGISLATIVE RECORD OF FACTS
THAT SUPPORT A POLICY MAKING
DECISIONS.
SO, WE KNOW THAT ANY TIME WE
CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO, AND
POWER, AND THE SYSTEMS OF
POWER, THERE WILL BE
INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL REACT
NEGATIVELY TO THAT, SO, WE WANT
TO BE IN THE BEST POSITION TO
DEFEND OUR ACTIONS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE
EXISTS AND THE RECORD WILL BE
ABLE TO BE BUILT TO REALLY HIT
THE NAIL ON THE HEAD THAT WHAT
WE ARE DOING HERE IS ADDRESSING
CORRUPTION, AND THE APPEARANCE
AND PERCEPTION OF CURRENT
CORRUPTION IN OUR HERE ARE
ELECTIONS.
AND THAT IS A WORTHY CHALLENGE
TO TAKE UP AT THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO, WE WILL NOT BE VOTING THIS
BILL OUT.
IT HAS BEEN AMENDED.
I AM EXTREMELY GRATEFUL TO
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WHO WILL
CONTINUE THIS WORK IN THE FIRST
QUARTER.
TO , ALONG WITH MY STAFF, TO
ACCOMPLISH ALL OF THOSE THINGS
I AM OUT OF MATERNITY LEAVE.
TODAY IS MY LAST DAY.
IN THE OFFICE BEFORE I HEAD OUT
AND HAVE A BABY.
SO, I AM REALLY APPRECIATIVE TO
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD FOR
AGREEING TO SEE THIS PIECE OF
THE WORK OVER THE FINISH LINE.
SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
PROCESS RELATED TO THIS
PARTICULAR COUNSEL BILL?
GREAT.
SO, WE WILL MOVE NOW INTO THE
SECOND COUNSEL BILL, WHICH IS
119731 RELATED TO FOREIGN'S
INFLUENCE CORPORATIONS.
I DO INTEND TO CALL THIS ONE TO
VOTE AND VOTE IT OUT OF
COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION BY
FULL COUNCIL ON MONDAY.
LISH?
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO, COUNSEL BILL 119731
ADDRESSES CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE
SIGNIFICANT FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
THAT IS AT A LEVEL WHERE IT
COULD INFLUENCE DECISIONS ABOUT
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
AND THE KEY DEFINITION IS IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE FOREIGN
INFLUENCE CORPORATION IS
DEFINED AS HAVING A SINGLE
FOREIGN OWNER THAT OWNS 1% OR
MORE OF THE CORPORATION.
TWO OR MORE FOREIGN OWNERS THAT
INCLUDE 5% OR MORE OF THE
CORPORATION.
AND/OR A FOREIGN OWNER THAT
PARTICIPATES DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY IN CORPORATE
DECISION-MAKING REGARDING
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.
>> I SHOULD MENTION THAT THE
DECEMBER, I THINK 3rd MEETING
OF THE GENDER EQUITY COMMITTEE,
WE HEARD EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM
ELLEN WEINTRAUB, FROM THE
FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION,
AND HARVARD PROFESSOR WHO
INDICATED THAT THESE WERE
APPROPRIATE LIMITS IN TERMS OF
THRESHOLD WHERE A CORPORATION
IS BEING INFLUENCED BY AN OWNER.
>> SO, THE BILL WOULD STATE
THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCED
CORPORATIONS WOULD NOT BE
PERMITTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO
CAMPAIGNS FOR ELECTED OFFICE.
MAKE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES,
OR CONTRIBUTE TO INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE COMMITTEES.
CORPORATIONS THAT DO WANT TO
MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO A
CAMPAIGN, MAKE IT INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE OR CONTRIBUTE TO AN
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
COMMITTEE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE NOT
FOREIGN INFLUENCE.
>> LISH, HAVE WE DONE ANY SORT
OF LOOK BACK ANALYSIS OF THE
CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE
CONTRIBUTED TO POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS? WHAT PERCENTAGE OF
THEM WOULD BE IMPACTED BY A
BILL LIKE THIS?
>> NO.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS
POSSIBLE TO DO BEFORE FULL
COUNCIL?
OR, WOULD THAT JUST BE TOO
EXHAUSTIVE OF A TASK?
>> SO, THAT -
>> OVER JUST DON'T HAVE THAT
INFORMATION?
>> YEAH, WE PROBABLY COULD FIND
THE INFORMATION.
BUT, IT IS A WHOLE NEW AREA OF
DISCLOSURE THAT I PROBABLY
COULDN'T GET THAT DONE THIS
WEEK.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> JUST GIVEN, I DON'T KNOW HOW
OWNERSHIP RECORDS FOR
CORPORATIONS ARE -
>> UNDERSTOOD.
UNDERSTOOD.
>> CONSTRUCTED.
>> MAY I ASK A QUESTION?
THIS APPLIES ALSO TO BALLOT
MEASURES.
>> NO.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, THAT
NONE OF THE THREE BILLS WOULD
APPLY TO BALLOT MEASURES.
FOREIGN INFLUENCED
CORPORATIONS, YOU WILL SEE THAT
THERE IS, THERE WAS SOME
LANGUAGE INCLUDED THAT WOULD,
THAT WOULD APPLY HERE IN THE
FOREIGN INFLUENCE CORPORATION
SPACE THAT WOULD SAY THAT
FOREIGN INFLUENCED CORPORATIONS
JUST CAN'T MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS
DIRECTLY TO CAMPAIGNS, JUST
LIKE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
CONTRIBUTIONS.
SO, THAT WOULD BE NEW.
>> WE ARE SEEING A WAY FOR
BALLOT INITIATIVES AT THIS
JUNCTURE.
>> VEDRAL COURTS HAVE
DETERMINED THAT, WHILE A
FOREIGN PERSON CAN'T
PARTICIPATE THROUGH DIRECT
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES, OR THROUGH DIRECT
CONTRIBUTIONS, THEY MAY MAKE
STATEMENTS ON ISSUES OF
POLITICAL INTEREST.
SO, WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID ANY
ISSUE LIKE THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WAS OR JUST -
>> THAT'S IT.
>> THERE WAS JUST ONE THERE.
ALL RIGHT.
CATCHING UP AFTER STEPPING OUT
FOR JUST A MINUTE.
OKAY.
SO, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
CONCERNS COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE
FOREIGN'S INFLUENCE
CORPORATIONS BILL?
ALL RIGHT.
SO, I AM GOING TO CALL THIS ONE
TO VOTE.
SO, I WILL MOVE THAT THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PASSAGE OF
COUNSEL BILL 119731.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS
OR DISCUSSION?
OKAY.
SO, HEARING NONE, THOSE IN
FAVOR OF THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING PASSAGE OF THE
BILL VOTE AYE
>> AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED?
ANY EXTENSIONS?
MOTION CARRIES AND THE
COMMITTEE WILL RECOMMEND
PASSAGE OF COUNSEL BILL 119731
FOR THIS JANUARY 13 AT THE FULL
CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
THANK YOU.
>> AND, WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE
NEXT BILL, WHICH IS REGARDING
POLITICAL ADVERTISING 119732.
>> SO, THIS BILL ALSO
INTRODUCES A NEW TERM,
QUALIFIED PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
IT IS DEFINED AS A PAID
ADVERTISEMENT THAT IS INTENDED
TO INFLUENCE POLITICAL
DECISIONS.
IN RELATION TO A STATEMENT I
JUST MADE, IT IS NOT PROHIBITING
THOSE PAID ADVERTISEMENTS.
IT IS JUST REQUIRING THAT A,
THAT ADVERTISERS KEEP
INFORMATION ON THE BOOKS ABOUT
WHO IS MAKING THE STATEMENTS.
SO, IT IS REQUIRING SOME
DISCLOSURE REGARDING THE
STATEMENTS, BUT NOT PROVIDING
ANY LIMITS ON THEM.
>> COMMERCIAL ADVERTISERS WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN
DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT
FOR QUALIFIED PUBLIC
COMMUNICATIONS FOR FOUR YEARS
AFTER THE COMMUNICATION OCCURS.
IT WOULD REQUIRE ADVERTISERS TO
KEEP DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF
ACCOUNTS TO INCLUDE THE
ADVERTISEMENT, LEADERS OF ANY
CORPORATIONS PLACING THE
QUALIFIED PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
RATES CHARGED FOR THE
ADVERTISEMENTS, SUBJECTS OF THE
ADVERTISEMENT AND NAMES OF
CANDIDATES.
THE ELECTION OR LEGISLATIVE
ISSUE.
AND, NAMES OF CANDIDATES,
CANDIDATE COMMITTEES AND
TREASURERS FOR CAMPAIGNS THAT
ARE PLACING ADVERTISEMENTS.
SO, ACCEPT THIS SORT OF LISTED
HERE, THESE REQUIREMENTS APPLY
FOR COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING,
BOTH FOR CAMPAIGNS AND FOR
QUALIFIED PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
RELATED TO LEGISLATIVE ACT'S.
OUTSIDE THE CAMPAIGN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> SO, UNDER THE 2008 LOBBYIST
REGISTRATION LAW, THERE ARE
SOME DISCLOSURE RELATED
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS OF THE
COUNCIL, AND I BELIEVE OF THE
EXECUTIVE AS WELL.
SO, THIS BILL ENHANCES SOME OF
THE REQUIREMENTS AROUND ISSUE
BASED LEGISLATIVE LOBBYING.
BUT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT IS
ONLY DURING AN ELECTION.
SO, WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT TO
HAVE THOSE ENHANCED
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS YEAR
ROUND?
SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ISSUE
BASED LEGISLATIVE LOBBYING?
>> WHAT THIS BILL DOES, IS IT
ACTUALLY DOES APPLY REGULATIONS
THAT WE CURRENTLY APPLY DURING
THE ELECTION PROCESS TO OTHER
TYPES OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING
OUTSIDE THE ELECTION PROCESS.
SO, I THINK IT DOES EXACTLY
WHAT YOU SUGGESTED, THAT THE
QUALIFIED COMMUNICATION IS NOT
IN ELECTION RELATED ACTIVITY IS
AN ACTIVITY ALL THE REST OF THE
FOUR YEAR CYCLE, WHEN OUR TWO
YEAR CYCLE -
>> SO, THAT REQUIREMENT IS YEAR-
ROUND?
IT IS NOT TRIGGERED FOR ISSUE
BASED LOBBYING, LEGISLATIVE
LOBBYING DURING AN ELECTION
CYCLE?
>> RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
I MISS READ AN EARLIER MEMO.
APPRECIATE THAT.
TANK YOU.
>> AND THAT IS A BIG SHIFT,
BOTH IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD
APPLY TO ISSUE RELATED ADVOCACY
, AND THAT IT IS, A CHANGE
AROUND IT APPLYING YEAR-ROUND
ARE TWO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN
THIS SPACE IN ADDITION TO
REQUIRING SOME ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION BE RETAINED BY THE
COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER FOR
PURPOSES OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT
THEIR ACTIVITY IS TO BOLSTER
TRANSPARENCY IN THIS SPACE. I
FELT THAT IT WAS REALLY
IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE TO
INCLUDE ALL OF THOSE THREE
COMPONENTS. PARTICULARLY THE
ONE AROUND ISSUE RELATED
LOBBYING WE SAW DURING THE
DEBATE AROUND THE EMPLOYEE
HOURS TAX IN PARTICULAR, IF YOU
RECALL COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD,
THAT THERE WERE SOME MOLLIFIED
PUBLIC - WOULD HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED QUALIFIED PUBLIC
COMMUNICATIONS AND PAID
ADVERTISEMENT TO INFLUENCE
POLITICAL OPINION AROUND THAT
POLICY THAT WERE BEING POSTED
PRETTY ACTIVELY ON LINE AND
THROUGH OTHER DIGITAL SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS WITH NO
DISCLOSURES TO TELL PEOPLE WHO
WAS FUNDING THEM.
AND, ULTIMATELY, VERY LITTLE
REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE TO THE
COMMISSION, MUCH LESS TO THE
PUBLIC, WHO WAS FUNDING THEM,
AT WHAT LEVEL THEY WERE BEING
FUNDED, AND WHY.
SO, I FELT IT WAS REALLY
IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF
THAT ACTIVITY WAS GOING TO
OCCUR, WHICH I EXPECT IT WILL
CONTINUE TO OCCUR, THAT IN THE
MINIMUM, WE ARE REQUIRING A
LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY THAT
REALLY ALLOWS THE PERSON WHO IS
RECEIVING THE MESSAGE AND BEING
TARGETED BY THE MESSAGE TO
UNDERSTAND WHO THEY ARE BEING
TARGETED BY.
AND TO REQUIRE THEM TO RETAIN
INFORMATION IN A WAY THAT WILL
REALLY PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY IN
OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS.
SO, THAT'S THE MOTIVATION
BEHIND THIS CHANGE, WHICH SEEMS
SMALL IN THE GRAND SCHEME AND
SCALE OF THINGS, BUT REALLY
WILL GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS
ADDING TRANSPARENCY TO HOW
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS
COMMUNICATE INFORMATION TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC. NOT ONLY ABOUT
CANDIDATES AND CAMPAIGNS, BUT
ALSO ABOUT LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES THAT THE CITY IS
ADVANCING THROUGH ITS
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON
THIS ONE?
ALL RIGHT.
SO, SEEING NONE, I DO INTEND TO
MOVE THIS ONE OUT OF COMMITTEE
AS WELL.
THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS FOR US
TO CONSIDER.
SO, I WILL MOVE THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNSEL
BILL 119732.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
OTHER ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS
ON THE BILL?
HEARING NONE, THOSE IN FAVOR OF
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING
PASSAGE OF THE BILL VOTE AYE
>> AYE
>> THOSE OPPOSED VOTE NO.
AND THERE ARE NO ABSTENTIONS.
THE MOTION CARRIED TO THE CITY
WILL RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF
COUNSEL THE 119732 TO BE
CONSIDERED AT THE JANUARY 13
CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
OKAY, COLLEAGUES.
THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR
GENDA.
LOOK AT THAT.
RECORD TIME.
IT IS ONLY 10:36.
I AM JUST FLABBERGASTED AT HOW
QUICKLY THAT WENT.
SO, I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU
ALL FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT,
PARTICULARLY THE NEWER
COUNCILMEMBERS.
I KNOW THAT YOU ALL ARE JUMPING
IN AND REALLY SORT OF GRAPPLING
WITH THE POLICY ISSUES HERE.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THE TWO
COUNSEL BILLS THAT WE VOTED OUT
OF COMMITTEE TODAY ARE PRETTY
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE, AND
HAVE A BROAD CONSENSUS AND
SUPPORT, BOTH AMONG
STAKEHOLDERS AND HERE IN CITY
COUNCIL. I DO THINK THAT THE
FIRST COUNSEL BILL RELATED TO
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES WHILE
IN THEORY AND PRINCIPLE, THERE
IS LOSS OF SUPPORT FOR IT,
THERE ARE STILL SOME UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS, AS I SUMMARIZED
MOMENTS AGO.
AND, BELIEVE THAT WE COULD
BENEFIT FROM A LITTLE BIT MORE
TIME AND HOPE THAT YOU ALL
AGREED WITH THAT.
SO, I DO WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO
MY FRIENDS OVER AT FIXED
DEMOCRACY FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO
GET THAT OUT OF COMMITTEE NOW.
BUT, I THINK THAT AGAIN, WE
WANT TO, IT IS MORE IMPORTANT
TO GET IT RIGHT THEN TO JUST
GET IT DONE.
AND WE WILL GET IT DONE.
AND WHEN WE GET IT DONE, WE
WILL FEEL VERY, VERY STRONGLY
ABOUT THE WORK PRODUCT THAT
COMES OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE.
SO, REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
ALL'S FLEXIBILITY AND
WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH US AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
WE ARE TRYING TO ULTIMATELY
ACCOMPLISH AND APPRECIATE THE
ONGOING SUPPORT AND ENGAGEMENT
WITH US.
THAT IS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR
AGENDA.
ARE THERE ANY CLOSING REMARKS
OR COMMENTS BY ANYBODY?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THIS WORK ON THIS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION.
AND WANT TO SIGNAL TO - GROUPS
WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS
ELECTION REFORM.
THAT I WILL BE CONVENING
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AROUND
THIS IMPACT BILL AND I AM
EXCITED TO WORK WITH
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ'S STAFF
IN CONVENING SOME OF THOSE
CONVERSATIONS OVER THE NEXT FEW
WEEKS.
SO, THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS ISSUES UP AND
THINK ADVOCATES FOR BRINGING
THIS TO THE COUNCIL. THIS IS
CLEARLY REALLY IMPORTANT.
WE ALL EXPERIENCE THIS IN THE
LAST ELECTION AND WE KNOW HOW
IMPORTANT THIS WORK IS.
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BEING WILLING TO SLOW DOWN THIS
PARTICULAR PIECE, BECAUSE THERE
ARE MANY OF US WHO ARE NEW.
WE HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS,
DEFINITELY BE TALKING WITH
ADVOCATES AND TALKING WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE STAFF TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER.
AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FINAL
PRODUCT IS ONE THAT WE CAN ALL
BE REALLY PROUD OF.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MEMBER. ANYONE
ELSE?
REALLY EXCITED TO HAVE THIS
CONSIDERED ON MONDAY.
UNFORTUNATELY, I WILL NOT BE
THERE, BUT I WILL BE CHEERING
YOU ALL ON.
I AM ALSO NOT GOING TO COMMIT
TO WATCHING IT ON THE CHANNEL.
I WILL LIKELY BE DEALING WITH A
NEWBORN WHO IS JUST SEVERAL
DAYS OLD BY THE 13th. BUT, I
REALLY WANT TO APPRECIATE YOUR
ALL'S UNDERSTANDING AND YOUR
ONGOING ENGAGEMENT IN THE
ISSUE.
I AGREE WITH YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, THIS IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND REALLY
APPRECIATE THE ADVOCATES. YOU
KNOW, BEATING THE DRUM HERE.
AND STAYING CONSISTENT IN THEIR
ADVOCACY IN THIS SPACE.
HAS BEEN REALLY, REALLY HELPFUL
TO ME AND I HAVE LEARNED A TON.
WE HAVE LEARNED A TON IN THIS
SPACE.
THANKS ALSO TO - IN THOMAS OF
MY OFFICE WHO HAVE BEEN DOING
EXCELLENT, SUPERB STAFFING IN
THIS SPACE.
REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THEIR
WORK.
SO, THAT IS THE LAST ITEM ON
OUR AGENDA.
AND, WE ARE NOW ADJOURNED.
>> THANK YOU.