San Francisco Ethics Commission staff recommended a stipulated decision finding coordinated spending by the Labor and Working Families Slate and consultant Daniel Anderson created an impermissible contribution benefiting Supervisor Dean Preston’s campaign, and the commission voted 4-0 to adopt the recommendation.

The commission’s enforcement counsel, Mr. D'Amico, summarized the case for the commission and members of the public. “This case involves respondents' Labor and Working Families Slate, which is a general purpose committee, and their consultant, Daniel Anderson,” D'Amico said, laying out staff’s view that text messages and other communications showed the consultant had coordinated timing, location and mode of dissemination with campaign staff.

Commission staff told commissioners the committee paid $6,968 for flyers used at a campaign event. Half the printing included lists of county central committee candidates; the other half said only a single message opposing Bilal Mahmood. Staff traced the portion targeted to Assembly District 19 to the Preston supervisor race and concluded that $2,613 of the spending benefitted Preston after coordination. D'Amico said the local contribution limit was $500, leaving $2,113 over the limit; staff added a 15% reporting penalty ($400) for a total recommended penalty of $2,513.

Why it matters: The enforcement memo emphasized the legal distinction between an independent expenditure and a contribution when communications benefitting a candidate are coordinated. D'Amico said, “if an independent expenditure funds a communication that benefits a candidate, and it was coordinated with that candidate, then the expenditure is not independent, and it should have been considered a contribution.”

During follow-up, commissioners asked staff whether the Preston campaign itself had known of or participated in the communications’ substantive content. Audit Manager Eamon (former investigator) told the panel the consultant “was aware of the coordination line generally” and that the key issue here was that staff found no evidence the campaign had input on the substance; that lack of evidence informed staff’s decision to bring the case only against the committee and its consultant rather than the candidate’s campaign. Eamon said the respondents did not assert statutory confusion to staff during the investigation.

Public comment: No members of the public spoke on the item during the meeting.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioner chair Tice Finlow moved to adopt staff’s recommendation; the motion was seconded and approved 4-0. The commission’s action adopts the stipulation, decision and order as presented by staff. The commission record will reflect the stipulated resolution and the associated penalty.

Ending: The commission closed the enforcement matter and proceeded to other agenda items, including a separate public hearing on the commission’s budget.