Take part in local music and things like that. It is ran by an Incredible Team of women. I want to make sure that is given its a voice here. I support this legislation, as well. Next speaker, please. If there any more speakers, if you would line up behind this gentleman. This is a good proposal, and i agree with it. I wish you wouldve had it during the younger years when i was in fillmore. Each and every one of these people that came up here and explained why they want this, to have this type of protection, they are also crying out because it is their source of income in order to support themselves. This proposal, to displace them, is an example of gentrification. Gentrification is a word that is used to discriminate against people based on geographical locations. You are doing it to them, and even though their skin color is not black, it is the same type of treatment that black people had to suffer in the Western Addition of fillmore. For example, gentrification in washington is taking place, there is an attorney that has the same type of philosophy as me and suing washington, d. C. For the gentrification and displacement of tenants for hightech people that is displacing lower income bracket people. This is a derivative of this kind of demonstration that im putting before you. Cant get you on discrimination based on race, but you are violation their due process and equal protection under the law. It is not equal protection under a law by allowing a hightech company to come in come and stop negotiating the contract on continuing them to survive and support themselves by letting a hightech company like twitter come in and displace them. Youve got numerous Small Businesses that went out of business and have been displaced and boarded up. Then you turn around i want to find the owner of the Apartment Building complex because the tenant cannot afford to pay rent there. Youre doing the same thing all over again. So, this measure, that man is proposing needs to be in effect and should have been in effect when jennifer took place in the fillmore. Next speaker, please. Any other speakers after this speaker please line up. Good afternoon, thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Im speaking on behalf, i am nina miller on foztwo two attorney and i represent Todd Crittenden from whom youve heard earlier and his brother dave, i been a long longtime attorney. Im representing them and their brother scott who owns a building. We have heard a lot here today about the hardships of a Small Business. There are two people here who know that very well. Dave and todd have worked very, very hard since the 1960s to keep their Small Business alive in San Francisco. They are really looking to move that to the upper floor, that they lost during the downturn in the 1990s. Their hearts, i know, go out to everyone who is working to support a Small Business. I have submitted a letter on friday, i have never done this before. I want to make sure i get it correctly, i will submit another copy today outlining our concern and i will submit this to the clerk of the board when its available. The zoning control, one of our concerns is that the zoning control before you today we dont believe that this is properly drafted interim zoning control resolution or that the subject matter of this qualifies for the interim base. The impact on public health, safety, general welfare, i think its important to look at those in terms of the business that is trying to move in there is also the issue of the fact that they do have the recorded lease with micro biz to move into the upper floor, and this would presumably prevent that from happening. Thank you, counselor. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is jim vargas. I was born and raised in San Francisco. I think we definitely need to find a way to save mezzanine. Its been an incredible place for artists musicians, to continue to do their work. Losing mezzanine is going to mean a lot to the city. It is one of the only major independent venues of that size capacity. It also gives us an opportunity for a lot of the younger acts coming up to the city to perform there. To play with her their idols and get them on bigger bills. We need to save mezzanine for many different reasons, but to keep the spirit of San Francisco ally. Thank you very much. No other members of the public for this item. Let me close Public Comment to make a few comments before handing it over to supervisor 15 has sponsored this measure. I want to start with the fact that i introduced a similar piece of legislation, actually much more narrowly tailored as it related to the punchline which i believe is going to result in the outcome that it was intended to result in. This is a much broader Geographic Scope piece of legislation. While much of the testimony has been about one particular venue, this actually covers a wide swath of territory in district six, primarily district six, that is full of available, latenight institutions that are part of the fabric of the city, as many people have testified to. As to the contentions by the property owner, i am advised that this is entirely within the powers of the board of supervisors, somebody who authored a very similar piece of legislation to protect another entertainment venue. I intend to vote for it i want to thank supervisor haney for bringing it forward. Supervisor haney thank you terry peskin. I want to thank every who came out today, and spoke. I want to think, i shouldve said this earlier, folks from the entertainment commission, president of the entertainment commission, is here who has been, and has been working with all of us to try to make sure that the support and protect nightlife citywide. I want to thank everybody from mezzanine who came out today. I think what you spoke to demonstrated why it is so important that we do this. Why it is so important that we not only protect mezzanine itself, but venues like mezzanine. Who have been impacted by this legislation and have reached out and said how excited they are about this. We know that, if we do not do this, the forces that you spoke of will continue to displace venues and change San Francisco in ways that will be very hard to come back from. A venue like mezzanine is not easily replaced. I think we have seen a number of venues over the last few years that we have been unable to replace, they never can find a home in San Francisco. This is something that we take our responsibility to do, very seriously. This is within our powers to say it is because when the interest to have certain types of zoning uses, to have a higher level of specificity or discretion when certain types of things are happening. Particularly when we have seen an area in like soma where nightlife has been critical and essential and we see those venues disappearing. That is where we have to interview intervene for public interest. That is what were doing doing here. You have my commitment to do whatever i can to support and protect these venues, and also that we look for longerterm, more public solutions. It will be a temporary solution and we also need longterm solutions. I want to thank everyone that came out. I also want to recognize and think the cretin brothers and the representatives that are here, as well. I hope the conversations will continue. I hope you heard today why we are doing this, and why it is so critical that we protect these venues. With that, i hope we can put this forward, chair, with a positive recommendation to the board. Chair peskin i will take that as a motion Area Supervisor safai will not object. So we will send this to the board. He wanted to second but we do not second things on three committees, hence my words we will send this to the full board with recommendations. Without objection. Next item, please. Item number 5, 190458 ordinance amending the planning code and the administrative code to abolish the north of market Affordable Housing fund and have certain fees collected in conjunction with north of market Affordable Housing deposited in the citywide Affordable Housing fund; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1, and findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under planning code, section 302. Good afternoon. Amy tam. Item number five is an ordinance to amend the planning at administrative codes to allow north of market Affordable Housing fee is to be deposited in the citywide Affordable Housing fund instead of the north market housing fund. We are requesting this change because we are currently depositing all impact fees into this fund, including other geographically restricted fees. You account for them separately . We will account for them separately. This is an accounting change that the comptroller recommended we change. We are expecting the fees to come. We would not be changing the use of the fees which would be for stabilizing and preserving Affordable Housing in the specialties district. You said everything this supervisor would like to hear. Anything you would like to add . Thank you. Good afternoon. I just also want to share that the Planning Commission heard this item on june 13, during the hearing the commission did recommend approval of the ordinance with a modification to index the fee to reflect todays economy. The proposed fee increase is to change the fee from 5 per square foot up to 25. 41 per square foot. I wanted to reiterate that this cleanup is to make the collection of the north market fees consistent with the collection of other Affordable Housing fees. Amy and i are available to answer any further questions. This concludes our presentation. Any Public Comment on this item . S. Okay. First of all, any transfer of any fees to the Mayors Office on housing, i object to. Her testimony verifies how she is only in support of high income bracket housing, okay. She refuses to include low income and very low income bracket people. The majority of the people. You have 8,011 Homeless People out in the street. Each and every time that you come up here, before the mic on the board coming you claim that it is 100 Affordable Housing. Each and every time, its time to put in an application, the lowest income requirement is higher than the income bracket hey you campaign and claim that you want to help. For example, this demonstration that i put before you and its right across the street from Saint Anthonys church. It says Affordable Housing, making it affordable for at least 39,000 per year. The ami scale here shows anybody that is making 39,000 a year, is 35 of the medium. That means everybodys income that is below that bracket, which is a group that is not only homeless, has disabilities in San Francisco, is 28,200 people that is in this income bracket that is not included in the socalled Affordable Housing opportunity. It is disgusting. Hundred nonprofit developer who is putting together 87 unit Apartment Building complex for a mere 64,000 54 million. 144 unit Apartment Building, look at me, please is 144 unit 456 million. Heres another threestory building that is cheaper than what newsom. Thank you, mr. Wright. Your time is up. You have made your point. Thank you, sir. Seeing no other members of the public on this item. If there is no objection we will send it to the full board with positive recommendation. Next item please. Item number 6, 190459 ordinance amending the planning code to allow operation of a Farmers Market on the department of Motor Vehicles field Office Parking lot at 1377 fell street by allowing an intermittent activity to be located on a lot with a public facility in specified residential zoning districts; affirming the appropriate findings. Mr. Asterisk are you here for this item . The floor is yours. Good afternoon, thank you chair travertine. The item before he was heard in front of the Planning Commission on june 20. During the hearing, they unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance exciting opportunity to enlarge the Farmers Market. There is also discussion acknowledging that there would be opportunity to allow the Farmers Market at the public facilities throughout the entire city. This concludes staff presentation on im available to answer questions. It is a simple and straightforward change. Any questions from Committee Members are Public Comment on this item . Public Comment is closed. We will send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. Next item, please. Item number 7, 190598 ordinance amending the public works code to modify the requirements for obtaining personal Wireless Service facility site permits; and affirming the appropriate findings. Good afternoon. My name is deborah im here on behalf of public works to give you a presentation related to personal wireless facilities. To expedite [inaudible] the purpose of the code amendments relates to current, state and federal laws to give them the rights to [inaudible] read foz permits much be issued and allow the city to establish objective Design Standards. The permitting process takes 90180 days and does not include objective design criteria. More specificity on the ruling is shown in this light, as you can see the order establishes a 60 day shot clock for existing facilities and a 60 day shot clock for facilities. The purpose of the amendment first and foremost are to comply with the fcc order. Over the last number of months the city departments including the department of technology, planning, public works have been meeting to develop effective and compliant approach to incorporate the fcc order into current processes. The proposed article 25 amendments includes amplification. Maintain master license agreements for carriers and communicate the process alike. This slide shows a sidebyside comparison of timeline. The current process takes 90180 days. The revised process will take 4560 days and reduces the process of referrals to other agencies. I will walk through in detail the current and proposed captured in our 25 amendments. This is the current wireless process. As i mentioned this process does take 90180 days. This slide is the proposed changes that will impact the process. Article 25 amendments to modify the existing permitting process only to include permit. They would similarly review authorizations for wireless abilities on the individual city poles. The permitting process would remain public works to ensure objective Design Standards and how standards are met. The amended process, the carriers would require clearance prior to their application before working with public works. Still refer the application for review. The amended process approved during the protest period. The appeal process would remain unchanged. It would ensure compliance with fcc order. This slide you can see the proposed process for puc. This process which was developed in coordination would comply with the new fcc order as well. [inaudible] a little bit of the objective design criteria. As i mentioned the proposed ordinance amendments are supported and are available for question. Thank you. Let me just say, for the record, that the industry owns the United States congress. Now that i have gotten that off of my chest. Are there any questions from Committee Members . I think you have done the best with what you have got. Thank you for your work, and thank you deputy City Attorney sanders for this and thank you for the briefing you gave me in my office area. I believe sanders had given you some proposed i was just going to speak to those right here. Clerical amendments on the following pages. Deputy City Attorney gartner they are on non substantial clerical amendments. He is nodding his head in the affirmative. We do not need to discuss section numbers 15, 22. I just did it. With that, are there members of the public who would like to testify on this item number 7 . That is mr. Wright. Unlike you, im not scared of going up against a multibilliondollar establishment. It was just a Radioactive Material that is being discharged by these towers that is built by schools. As a result, families, instructors, contract with the preschoolers located right by the tower, because of the radioactive generation that affects the kids, and no scientific studies being done. It is causing the schools to shut down. And thinking about shutting down. You have no test results to measure the amount of Radioactive Material that is coming from these towers. About you being affiliated with pg e, that is the worst he could do is be affiliated with them. The fires that they cause with several counties, caught on fire, about 1 Million Properties have been lost, and lives lost with defective equipment and it has just been determined that their equipment was notified, several years ago, that it was defective and it was just a matter of time before a fire would take place at a catastrophe level. They still didnt do anything about it. I further object to the governor providing 21 billion to pg e to help them how their lawsuit area that is a conflict of interest. Youre not supposed to be paying off pg es lawsuit. Just like me, pg e has several different types of insurance, they should not be paid off with taxpayers money from their friends and paid off by gavin newsom because he is friends with pg e. Until there is a Scientific Study done on the amount of radioactive waste that is coming from them towers, and correlating with the health of human beings, particularly kids. I do not want this to move until that is complete. Is that clear . Thank you, mr. Wright. I apologize for mispronouncing your name. You are hurting my feelings, because i unanimously passed i do want to say i have made a College Industry fighting against billiondollar companies. With that, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues . Can we take the amendments without objection . That will be the order and we will send the item regretfully, as amended, to the full board with recommendation without objection. We are adjourned. Better. San Francisco Department of environment is a place where climate hits the street. We know that we dont have all the answers. We need to support our local champions, our local community to find Creative Solutions and innovations that help us get to zero waste. Zero waste is sending nothing to landfill or incineration, using reuse and recovery and prevention as ways to achieve zero waste. The Grant Program is a Grant Program specifically for nonprofits in San Francisco to divert material from landfill. Its important to find the San FranciscoProduce Market because theres a lot of edible food that can be diverted and they need positions to capture that food and focus on food recovery. San francisco Produce Market is a resource that connects farmers and their produce with businesses in the bay area. I think its a basic human right to have access to healthy foods, and all of this food here is available. Its a matter of creating the infrastructure, creating jobs, and the system whereby none of this goes to waste. Since the beginning of our program in july 2016 to date, weve donated over 1 Million Pounds of produce to our community partners, and thats resulted in over 900,000 meals to people in our community, which were very proud of. Carolyn at the San FranciscoProduce Market texts with old produce thats available. The produce is always excellent. We get things like broccoli, brussels sprouts, bell peppers. Everything that we use is nice and fresh, so when our clients get it, they really enjoy it, and its important to me to feel good about what i do, and working in programs such as this really provides that for me. Its helping people. Thats what its really about, and i really enjoy that. The work at the Produce Market for me representing the intersection between environment and community, and when we are working at that intersection, when we are using our resources and our passion and our energy to heal the planet and feed the people, nothing gets better than chair ronen mr. Clerk, can you please read item number one. Clerk prior to that, id like to make an announcement. Please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Documents referred to in presentations should be submitted to the clerk. Item number 1 is a hearing to propose the submitted ordinance to members of and candidates for the board of supervisors, the mayor, and candidates for mayor, the City Attorney, and candidates for City Attorney and the controlled committees of those officers and candidates. Chair ronen thank you so much. And i just wanted to note that we have quite a front row crowd in the audience. We have two former supervisors and a judge. We have former supervisor tom ammiano. We have the former chair of the Ethics Commission, tom renne. I will turn this over to supervisor mar. Supervisor mar thank you so much, chair, ronen, for allowing us to hold this informational hearing today, and im proud to be this sponsor on this dark money measure. Its earned the support of eight of my colleagues. Im also proud to share that it has all been endorsed by a number of important organizations, including represent us, friends of ethics, the harvey milk lgbtq democratic club, sf league of conservation voters, San Francisco berniecrats, San Francisco tomorrow, district 11 democratic club, d6 democratic club, and several former Ethics Commissioners. To work towards a more democratic and equitiable future, we must start at the root. If we want to ensure just policies, if we want to ensure just outcomes, we need a just system. Those in Public Office are entrusted to represent the public, and yet the money that fuels our elections is in large part private and fuels our super p. A. C. S who funnel large amounts of dark money in an attempt to buy elections. My constituents experienced this in district 4 last year when over 700,000 was donated by an Organization Called progress San Francisco, and they tried to influence the Mayors Office and other supervisors races last year. This is why ive made electoral reforms one of my priorities in office. While we strive for racial, economic, and gender equality, we must remember that political equality is at the root and intersections of each of these struggles. The path to a fairer, more equitiable and just city is one through a stronger democracy, where neither the color of your skin nor the amount of money in your wallet determines your ability to be represented and heard. When we have enshrined in our constitution the notion that all people are created equal, when corporations are determined to be people and people are not determined equal, in this fundamental inequality has real consequences in the policy of our city and our country. With political spending reaching record highs as trust in government reaches record lows, the issue of faith in our Political Institution is at a crisis point. There is little question of the cause of this disillusionment. When for profits donate to political causes, this is not a kind donation. This is an investment, and they expect returns on their investments, and these returns are real and draw the line between political inequities and racial and economic disparities. We are caught in a vicious cycle in which the rich pour money into election, secure political power and write rules that keep themselves wealthy and the rest of us struggling to get ahead. This is a cycle that builds upon itself in a dangerous feedback loop, and its a cycle that freezes out people of color and entrenches existing hierarchies in centuries of racebased oppression. Solving it is a remaining issue of the civil and Voting Rights movement. The study goes on to say that the government is sharply more responsive to the preferences of the wealthy than those to the average voter. In role of case policy whe including expansion of incarceration, and our stagnant National Minimum wage. So the question we must ask ourselves is not the issues is not the issues at hand, but what we can do about them. Corporate contributions, paytoplay politics, and dark money contributions are all places that bear no place in our democracy and have real consequences. The sun light on Dark Money Initiative addresses all three of these issues. First, it will ban all corporate contributions to many committees. Many are banned under existing law, but there are exceptions depending how businesses are incorporated. But eliminating these loopholes, we can take a clear stand against the appearance and instances of corruption. Second, it will ban paytoplay donations from Real Estate Developers from donating to candidates for elected offices that could play a role in improving those matters. Finally, sun light on dark money will create the strongest dark money disclosure law in the nation. Last year, the supervisor races were the most expensive in recent history. The race for mayor was the most expensive in recent history. Too often, independent expenditure committees are a local version of super p. A. C. S are funded by statelevel committees with nice sounding names like progress San Francisco. Sun light on dark money would change this by requiring i. E. C. S to include disclaimers on political ads listing their top donors and the amount of their donation, and if one of those donors is another committee, the top donors to that committee. Citizens united decided these donations are free speech. While we cant stop this money, we can bring it out of the dark. Even in authoring the majority opinion in Citizens United versus f. E. C. , Supreme CourtJustice Kennedy stressed the value of strong disclosure laws, writing, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporations political speech advances the corporations interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elects officials are in the pockets of socalled money interests. Voters deserve to know whos trying to buy their vote. The public deserves to know that our democracy is not for sale, our politics are not for sale, and our city is not for sale. Before inviting up our presenters, i want to note that in addition to the report and Supreme Court decision i referenced, ive also introduced the following into the record for this hearing. Number one, a civil grand jury report from 2013, requesting the city should require resolutions to require disclosure you ares and that the Ethics Commission should look again at the regulations from proposition j. In 2000, proposition j was placed on the ballot by Citizen Initiative and passed by the voters of San Francisco in a landslide. It regulated behavior of public officials, barring them from receiving a personal a personal or campaign advantage from anyone who gained a Public Benefit by action of the public official. This was later repealed by proposition e in 2003, which sought to recodify conflict of interest laws out of the charter, amending some of them and making nonvoter amendments possible in the future, though the repeal of proposition js regulations went undisclosed. If passed, sun light on dark money will enact the civil grand jury recommendations. Number two, a report from the Brennan Center of the citys 2013 effort to ban paytoplay contributions from Real Estate Developers which mirrors some of the language in this charter and which never went into effect. And number three, a study entitled the appearance and reality of quid pro quo corruption and empirical corruption, ensuring that contemporary politics. To be sure, while real instances of corruption exist and will be spoken on further in this hearing, addressing the potential appearance of corruption is cause enough to justify the provisions of this initiative. Now id like to welcome up former chair of the Ethics Commission and coauthor of this measure, peter keen. Thank you, mr. Chair. Supervisors, id like to commend you for putting forth this measure. Its a measure thats really desperately needed in our democracy, in any democracy. Theres a big vacuum. Supervisor mar, you mentioned Citizens United. One of the things i did in my former life, i was a constitutional law professor for many year, and looking at what the Supreme Court of the United States did in Citizens United, i can equate it with a couple of other rulings which i think Citizens United will have a similar history. Pre plessy versus ferguson, and the ruling in precivil war, saying that black people are not citizens, those were two great mistakes that the Supreme Court of the United States made, the two greatest mistakes. The third one in my opinion is Citizens United in terms of the effect upon democracy. And as some point we, as our history has shown, comes together as a democracy and says this is simply not right. This goes against the whole framework of democracy. And there will come a day and im no profphet, but the Supreme Court will confine Citizens United to the same file that did dredd scott and plessy. As you mentioned, supervisor mar, one big allowance that we can still take care of in terms of people being sure that government is not totally bought, and that is disclosure, that even though money can be given by anyone, the people that are giving it, the u. S. Supreme court has said unanimously all along, disclosure of who these people are is something thats fine. It does not fall or fly in the face of the First Amendment or anything else, and even the other courts that have been proCitizens United. Well, we dont have disclosure. We have minimal disclosure. Disclosure is virtually nonexistent. Ive been watching the political process in San Francisco for about the last 50 years in various things as chief assistant public defender, dean of a law school, and members of two commissions, Ethics Commission and police commission. And one of the things that i see, and particularly i saw it with great vividness on the Ethics Commission i think senator kopp will echo me on this, when things would come to the Ethics Commission, these people are behind these measures and its not disclosed anywhere, and there wasnt a darn thing we could do about it. We tried, senator kopp and paul renne and i tried for a year and a half to get a measure like this through the Ethics Commission. And i was the chair, and i had two very well known individuals, paul renne and senator kopp, and we thought we had it through. For the Ethics Commission to put something through, it requires four votes. We thought we not only had four votes, but we thought we had the four votes. We had the assurance of the fourth vote. And then, on the day of the vote, it was just the three of us. Me, commissioner renne, and senator kopp. And it was just a blunder bust im not an impulsive guy, but when i announced the vote, saying the measure fails, these four votes, measure fails by three i said the measure fails, i resign, and i walked away. Im not someone who is dramatic for the sake of being dramatic. My family will tell you im a rather dull guy. But when i did that, after i did that, John Gollinger and tom ammiano and i said lets go as directly as we can to the voters. The voters want this, because theyve been frustrated on so m many levels. And you, supervisors, have put it on the ballot for november. And i, someone who was not a pr who is not a prophet, it will win overwhelmingly. So i want to thank you very much. I want to add one other person to the long list of individuals who you indicate thd that have endorsed it. I think former mayor art agnos should get noticed. Hes backing it, as are many people as we go along. Thank you very much for this measure that you made. You have made a Wonderful Service to democracy by doing it. Supervisor mar thank you so much, peter. Any questions . Thank you. Now, id like to welcome up election law teacher and attorney John Gollinger. Good morning, supervisors. Chair ronen. Im John Gollinger. I actually cut my teeth on these issues as a community organizer. I spent four years being an attorney for Good Government and environmental issues. I learned the role of politics, and i was involved in a 1996 statewide ballot measure on these very issues. I will just add, my only other credential, ive been in this city a couple of decades working in and around these issues in many capacities, but i decided to go back to school and earn my law degree about a decade ago at golden gate, and was fortunate enough to have peter keen as my law professor, and now, as i said, i teach election law there. I want to drill down on the specifics of the measure. First, i also just want to mention by way of process. I am delighted that i think this measure will be a very good indication of how the process can work in multiple ways to get things done. As was mentioned, there was a log jam in the city hall version of how to get things done, so were going to the ballot. But i will mention as peter said, tom ammiano, he, and i sat down last summer. We started it as an initiative petition, and some, if not all three of you signed it, and then we collected a couple thousand signatures, and then, there was an election, and we were delighted to have supervisor mar and walton support it. I i want to drill down through the first three sections of the measure, and ill give you the legal justification for the third. The first component of the measure as ill describe it is closing the corporate money loophole. What the initiative does is amend section 1114 of the campaign Government Finance code by simply adding to the definition of corporation two other versions of corporation that have emerged since the original corporate ban was adopted. So originally, the board of supervisors adopted a flat ban on corporations donations for elected office. For over a century on the federal level, the federal government has banned direct corporate contributions to candidates for federal office. Whats occurred in recent years in particular is that other forms of corporate entities have emerged really having nothing to do with Campaign Reform law but specifically limited Liability Companies and limited liability partnerships, known as l. L. C. S or l. L. P. S. These have become common ways of doing business for a myriad of Small Businesses, law firms, etc. So what happened on the local start this started about a decade ago, i suspect crafty corporation lawyers advised their clients they could do an end run around the corporate donation ban by doing that. I said, isnt that the same thing, and they said youve got to change the law. I think thats pretty straightforward, so closing that contribution loophole. Second transparency, and this has been mentioned by presser keen and supervisor mar. But i want to give you a couple of conditions of what the dark money disclosure does. It amends section 1. 61 of the government and Campaign Finances code. This is specifically not about candidate committee disclosure. Our laws relate to the offices you and your competitors ran for were pretty good. People know when shaman walton, gordon mar, hillary ronen, run an ad, you have to put at it paid for by you. There are very few ways you could hide that or minimize that from voters. The same is not true for expenditures, also known as super p. A. C. S, and evdonation committees. Locally, San Francisco has the glorious notion of being the worst local proprietor, if you will, of dark money, invented expenditure money in our local politics. So if you feel like theres tons of dark money in our politics, youre right. Its occurring elsewhere, but San Francisco is off the charts in both volume and common frequency. As ive said, a few committee have made this common practice. In last novembers elections, in both district 4 and district 6, progress San Francisco spent more money on the campaign than the actual candidates, which is only the second time thats ever happened. So what were really doing here is going after what voters know. And as was said, the Supreme Court within the bounds of Citizens United said transparency and disclosure, fine. I have a few examples. This was a district 6 mailer, and the video at the bottom of an internet mailer ad, paid for by a committee, clean and sunset. Major funding by progress San Francisco. And the district 6 version said paid for by san franciscans for change, major funding by progress San Francisco. I think all of us in this room know who are behind that committee, but most regular people would have no reason to know. Two big things. Number one, it will require the dollar amount of the donors to be listed, so that voters get more than a name and an actual piece of data that they can use to say to ask if they wish, whos really behind this and whats their agenda. And more importantly, it pierces the shell of fake name committees like that by requiring that progress San Francisco in this example, the top two donors to that committee would also have to be listed, and the amount of money they gave to that committee. In addition, the font will have to be bigger and some other cleanup things that make it easier for voters to know. Again, were trying to give voters information and ensuring they really know whos behind the Shell Committee and how much they gave. Only other thing ill say on that component and ill get to the last one is some may ask, well, arent the clever election lawyers going to find some other way to hide, and im sure they will. And to that i would say, were going to do that the same way you would eat an elephant, one bite at a time. And i think this will become the strongest in the country and a model for other cities. So at the end, i want to submit some materials, and supervisor mar has the same if you wish to share, is the paytoplay division, which prohibits not just the developer, which is already prohibited, but the top executives associated with that developer from giving to any city official running for the board of supervisors, mayor, or City Attorney or sitting in those offices for the entire time that the measure is pending or for 12 months its approved or after its done. We tried to narrowly craft it, so were talking about big projects, not someone renovating their house. Big developments, 5 million or more. What i submitted for the record in terms of the basis for this is a series of articles. You all are well familiar with the f. B. I. Sting on a couple of former city officials and employees, one of whom said we pay to play in San Francisco. Were the best in the biz to an f. B. I. Informant who posed as a developer, what were trying to prevent, and a series of related documents. I would ask the clerk, if you would, to pass around these three i gave you a copy for the record, but give it to the supervisors. So and ive come across this over the years, and then, over the weekend this is what i do with my weekend, i went and downloaded and organized for presentation from the Ethics Commission theres one specific developer who stands out i think its a really good flash bad example about how theyve done an end run around the corporate ban with a myriad of city officials at city hall. T. M. G. Officials is a big office developer. Theyve been one of the lead developers at 88 bluxome. So for the last 13 years, t. M. G. , top executives of t. M. G. , the same mostly dozen ten to 12 people have given on the same day, in the same amount, to the same person, Campaign Contributions to people running for mayor, supervisor, City Attorney. And ive got, what, 11 pages of this because it started in 2006, and the last data i have it for this last he is for this last election. This is about the interest, this is not about the politicians. There are other laws and other things, but certainly about the developers attempt to curry favor and make it look like their project should get approved, and they should have the inside track. So t. M. G. Partners in the last dozen years, their executives gave 327 contributions to 37 campaigns totaling over 199,000. This would ensure that t. M. G. And their executives cant give money, that the projects are approved on their merits and not based on money. So with that, i have given you