Individual Expenditure Ceilings Adjusted for Supervisorial Candidates in November 2018 Election
News from the San Francisco Ethics Commission
November 1, 2018
Contact: Pat Ford (415) 252-3100
The Individual Expenditure Ceilings of five publicly financed candidates in the November 2018 supervisorial races were raised today by the San Francisco Ethics Commission as required under the City’s current public financing laws.
In District 4, the Individual Expenditure Ceiling for Jessica Ho was raised from $400,000 to $410,000 because on November 1st Total Supportive Funds for candidate Gordon Mar totaled $392,877 and Total Opposition Spending against Ho totaled $21,003. The Individual Expenditure Ceiling for Gordon Mar was raised from $860,000 to $870,000 because on November 1st Total Supportive Funds for Ho totaled $869,592 and Total Opposition Spending against Mar totaled $2,130.
In District 6, the Individual Expenditure Ceiling for Christine Johnson was raised from $620,000 to $630,000 because on November 1st Total Supportive Funds for candidate Matt Haney totaled $610,787 and Total Opposition Spending against Christine Johnson totaled $20,522.
In District 10, the Individual Expenditure Ceiling for Theo Ellington was raised from $410,000 to $430,000 because on November 1st Total Supportive Funds for candidate Shamann Walton totaled $431,607. The Individual Expenditure Ceiling for Tony Kelly was raised from $410,000 to $430,000 because on November 1st Total Supportive Funds for candidate Shamann Walton totaled $431,607.
As part of the City’s voter approved public financing program, candidates must agree to abide by campaign spending limits as one of the requirements for receiving public funds. A candidate running for Board of Supervisor must agree to an initial spending cap of $250,000. Under City law, the Ethics Commission is required to raise the Individual Expenditure Ceiling of a publicly financed Board of Supervisor candidate when the Total Supportive Funds of one of the candidate’s opponents, together with the Total Opposition Spending against the candidate, exceeds the candidate’s own Individual Expenditure Ceiling. The ceiling is raised in increments of $10,000.
Total Supportive Funds is the sum of all funds (including monetary contributions, loans, in-kind contributions and public funds) received by a candidate other than funds in the candidate’s campaign contingency account, plus the expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person who makes independent expenditures, electioneering communications or member communications to support that candidate.
Total Opposition Spending is the sum of all expenditures made or incurred by any person for independent expenditures, electioneering communications or member communications to oppose a specific candidate. Total opposition spending does not include spending by a candidate to support himself or herself or to oppose his or her opponents in the same election.
To ensure the public is informed about third-party spending designed to influence voter choices, public disclosure reports are required during the 90 days prior to an election by persons who make independent expenditures, electioneering communications, or member communications that clearly identify a candidate for city elective office. These reports are due within 24 hours of each time a person spends $1,000 or more per candidate. Third party spending reports are regularly summarized by the Ethics Commission on its campaign finance data dashboards. Information about individual expenditure ceilings and public funding disbursed to qualified candidates for the November 2018 election can also be viewed on the Commission’s website.
# # #
The Ethics Commission, established in November 1993, serves the public, City employees and officials and candidates for public office through education and enforcement of ethics laws, including the assessment of fines through its administrative enforcement authority. Its duties include: filing and auditing of campaign finance disclosure statements, lobbyist and campaign consultant registration and regulation, administration of the public financing program, whistleblower program, conflict of interest reporting, investigations and enforcement, education and training, advice giving and statistical reporting. We invite you to follow our work at https://www.sfethics.org.