The campaign to elect John Avalos to Supervisor in District 11
has been certified by the San Francisco Ethics Commission
to receive public campaign financing.
File photo by Luke Thomas
From the San Francisco Ethics Commission
April 2, 2008
On April 2, 2008, the Ethics Commission certified John Avalos, candidate for the Board of Supervisors, District 11, as eligible to receive public funds from the San Francisco Election Campaign Fund.
Based on the declaration and supporting documentation that Mr. Avalos submitted on February 26, 2008, the Commission determined that he received qualifying contributions totaling $5,000 from at least 75 residents of the City, thus making him eligible to receive public funds. Mr. Avalos will receive an initial public grant of $10,000.
Candidates who seek public funds must agree to abide by an individual expenditure ceiling, which begins at $140,000 for Board of Supervisors races. Candidates who are certified to receive public funds may receive up to $87,500 in funds, depending upon the amount of matching contributions they raise from San Francisco residents.
If the Commission determines to raise the individual expenditure ceiling of Mr. Avalos, he may be eligible to receive funds in excess of $87,500, depending on the amount of funds available in the Election Campaign Fund, the number of candidates seeking public financing, and the amount of matching contributions he raises. The certification of a candidate as eligible to receive public funds in District 11 triggers reporting requirements under section 1.152(a) of the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 1.100 et seq.).
Under section 1.152(a)(2), each candidate for the Board of Supervisors in District 11 must file Form SFEC-152(b)-2 with the Ethics Commission within 24 hours of receiving contributions, making expenditures or having funds in his or her Campaign Contribution Trust Account that equal or exceed $100,000. Thereafter, the candidate must file an additional supplemental statement within 24 hours of every time the candidate receives additional contributions, makes additional expenditures or has additional funds in his or her campaign trust account that in the aggregate equal or exceed $10,000.
Under section 1.152(a)(3), any person (individual, partnership, corporation, association, firm, committee, club, or other organization or group of persons, however organized) who makes independent expenditures, electioneering communications or member communications that clearly identify a candidate for the Board of Supervisors in District 11 in an amount that in the aggregate equals or exceeds $5,000 must, within 24 hours of reaching the spending threshold, file Form SFEC-152(a)-3 and an original copy of the communication with the Ethics Commission.
Thereafter, any such person must file a supplemental statement and an original copy of the communication each time that the person makes or incurs an additional expense of $5,000 or more.
The costs of a communication that supports or opposes more than one candidate or measure must be apportioned among each candidate and measure in the communication.
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. Its duties include: filing and auditing of campaign finance disclosure statements, lobbyist and campaign consultant registration and regulation, administration of the public financing program, conflict of interests reporting, investigations and enforcement, education and training, advice giving and statistical reporting.
The Hunger Site
April 2, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Dear Mr. Wright,
Jonathan, my good man, you are absolutely wrong. Prop 98 would change FUTURE conditions as they apply to FUTURE tenants. I’m not exactly sure what John Avalos is “alluding” to or not, but he needs to be more direct and more transparent.
Prop 98 would not allow landlords to “evict long-time tenants and then raise rents.” That is simply not true! Please understand, the existing rent control laws would still apply to existing tenants. If Prop 98 passes, Ellis Act protections and all the other tenant protections that guard existing tenants would still be in place. That is a fact.
Anti-Prop 98 advocates need more up-front and emphasize the difference between existing and FUTURE tenant/landlord agreements in their debate. That is all that I’m asking. If they want to argue their points from that point on, I’m all for it. I’ve been both a tenant (who took a, shall we say, “less-than-attentive” landlord to rent arbitration) and a landlord, which is what I am now.
Brian Wallace
South of Market
April 2, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Brian,
I believe what John was alluding to was the fact that Prop 98, if passed, would gut existing laws that protect against unfair evictions thus allowing landlords to evict long-time tenants and then raise rents.
John Avalos is absolutely correct in stating that Prop 98 would be a devastating blow to the thousands of San Franciscans that rely on rent control.
Jonathan Wright
Alamo Square
April 2, 2008 at 12:23 pm
As Chris Daly’s legislative aide, John Avalos has worked hard to save the Flower Mart and to bring more trees to us here South of Market. For that, I am extremely grateful.
But, unless I’m mistaken, his blog spot http://avalos08.blogspot.com/ gives readers a false impression of Prop 98, the eminent domain reform ballot measure. He writes, “Overnight unscrupulous landlords would be able to raise the rent to any level they see fit. In San Francisco, long-term tenants who have enjoyed the protections that rent control has provided would suddenly find themselves on the street.â€
My understanding of Prop 98 is that tenants, currently in rent controlled apartments, would still be allowed to stay under the existing conditions of their lease agreements. However, once an apartment comes vacant, rent control would no longer apply to that apartment.
Brian Wallace
San Francisco