Me too: no position.
Françoise
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Fwd: Consent Form (Prop T - Lobbyist Gift
Ban)
From: “Marcy Berry amarcyb@hotmail.com [lpsf-activists]”
<lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, August 21, 2016 12:15 pm
To: “lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com” <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>Ditto. No position.
Marcy
I recommend “no position”
Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
From: “Aubrey Freedman aubreyyfreedman@gmail.com [lpsf-activists]” <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
To: yahoogroups <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 11:58 AM
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Fwd: Consent Form (Prop T - Lobbyist Gift Ban) [1 Attachment][Attachment(s) from Aubrey Freedman included below]
Hi All. I don’t know why folks do everything at the last minute, but we may as well take a look at this one now, since Zach has brought up the issue. Of course we did not endorse this one last Saturday since we ran out of time and didn’t even get to it. It will be one less one to take a look at our next meeting.
This one is “Restricting Gifts & Contributions from Lobbyists.” Another one of these attempts to stop lobbyists from getting around the law. It makes more rules regarding our favorite folks–lobbyists. It has 4 main changes to the law:
Currently lobbyists do not need to identify which City agencies they intend to influence and they need to report monthly. T will change that to require them to identify which agencies they intend to influence, and if they make a change, it must be reported in 5 days.
Currently lobbyists can’t give gifts exceeding market value of $25. T will change that to forbidding any gifts at all. Of course there’s an exception: 501c©(3) non-profits can give gifts of less than $25 if it’s food or beverage and all attendees of a public event also get offered the refreshments.
Currently a person who has made a payment to a third party is treated as the “true source.” T will change that to clarify that a lobbyist cannot use a third party to circumvent the gift restriction, and it’s now the third party that is the “true source.”
Lastly, and this part I really don’t like, it allows the SF Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors to change the law to further the purpose of T with a super-majority of the Commission and if the BOS approves the changes. I’ve noticed them putting this section in a lot more ballot measures these days–get the voters to approve a new law or mandate and then allow the politicians/bureaucrats to keep adding to it to make the law more restrictive or severe, without the voters’ approval. And they don’t move towards more individual freedom, but in the wrong direction.
This measure is similar in nature to Prop C from a year ago, which we ended up taking a NO POSITION (we’re torn). I would recommend either a NO or a NO POSITION because Libertarians should not be in the habit of endorsing more government rules and regulations. I do the state FPPC filings for the LPSF and it’s a hassle, and nobody knows the rules exactly, even when you call these government folks, and it’s laws like this that make everything more complicated. The only solution in my mind for reducing all the hanky panky is making government smaller and cutting them at the source–chopping down their money and laying off government employees by the gross–so lobbying for favors would become useless and not worth the chance of getting caught. I read somewhere recently in my research that Mark Farrell is facing some kind of legal trouble over campaign contributions because he or his folks didn’t do something right. I consider him one of the more ethical folks on the BOS, so it just shows you how even a decent-seeming person can get into hot water over too many complicated rules. In the end, I think folks still find away to get around the law, if they really want to.
I’ll let Zach know that we’re reviewing this one, but I definitely would not recommend signing his endorsement. Please advise your thoughts on this one.
Thanks!
AubreyP.S. Wendy emailed me that she found another SF group to sign the RR rebuttal and everything is ready to go to file in Alameda tomorrow, so we won’t be signing that one so nothing for us to do on that one now. I read the rebuttal though, not the proponents’ argument, and it looked quite kosher to me. Will forward all this after tomorrow.
From: Zach Goldfine <zachgoldfine@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:53 AM
Subject: Consent Form (Prop T - Lobbyist Gift Ban)
To: Aubrey Freedman <aubreyfreedman@yahoo.com>Hey Aubrey,
I hope you’re doing well! I’m not sure if you remember me but I came to a meeting a little while back.
I’m the Chair of Yes on Prop T (the one that stops elected officials from extorting contributions from lobbyists). I believe the SF Libertarian Party endorsed Prop T last week and we were hoping to get someone to sign the attached consent form to get the Libertarian Party’s official endorsement as an organization.
I’m sorry to be writing this email so close to the filing deadline but it’s unfortunately due by Monday (tomorrow) morning. Is there any chance this form could be printed and signed by a SF Libertarian Party officer authorized to do so on behalf of the org? I’d be happy to pick it up whenever and wherever is most convenient, ideally today or early tomorrow morning.
Again, I’m sorry for messaging so late. Please let me know when you get a chance. Thank you.
Best,
ZachFrom: Zach Goldfine <zachgoldfine@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:27 PM
Subject: This is the Consent Form for all Supes and Orgs to sign
To: Kieran Lal <kieran@gmail.com>, Larry Bush <sfwtrail@mac.com>
Cc: sfcoalition <sfcoalition@represent.us>See attached.
Posted by: francoise@thefieldingcompanies.com
Have you tried the highest rated email app?
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.