Pass: 104,012 / 67.16% Yes votes ...... 50,865 / 32.84% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

However, a person who contracts with the City is prohibited from making a campaign contribution if:

• the contract or series of contracts has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more;
• the contract must be approved by the elected official, the board to which the official was elected or a State government board on which an appointee of the official serves;
• the contract is made with the City, a State agency on whose board an appointee of a City elective official serves, the San Francisco Unified School District, or the San Francisco Community College District;
• the contribution is made to a City elected official, candidates for such City offices or to political committees they control; and
• the contribution is made at any time from the start of negotiations for the contract until either the end of negotiations or six months after the date the City approves the contract.

Any official, candidate or political committee they control that solicits or accepts these prohibited contributions could face penalties and would be required to transfer the contribution to the City.

Proposition H also would extend existing law to apply to contracts that must be approved by any City board on which an elected official serves.

Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, there would be a minimal impact on the cost of government.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No

A YES vote on this measure means:

If you vote yes, you want to change City law to make it unlawful for City elected officials, candidates or political committees they control to solicit or accept campaign contributions from certain contractors.

A NO vote on this measure means:

If you vote no, you do not want to make these changes to City law.

Proposition H is a common-sense change to our city ethics rules to help prevent even the appearance of a conflict of interest. It will ban those who seek an action from our city government from making contributions to political campaigns before, during and after they seek that action.

We have the right to expect that our leaders make decisions free from the influence of special interest campaign contributions. By banning contributions from those who seek major actions from the city, we help ensure a government that is more responsive to the needs of every resident - not just those who help fund campaigns.

This measure increases confidence in government by decreasing special interest influence over government decisions. It also protects those many residents who are legitimately petitioning their government for action from feeling as if they must give to campaigns in order to be heard.

We've made great steps toward reforming San Francisco city government during the past five years. Proposition H is one more important milestone in the ongoing process of reform.

Help us keep reforming San Francisco + Vote YES on Proposition H.

Mayor Gavin Newsom

Proposition H raises serious disputes that were originally on United States Constitution ratification and the political fights of Patrick Henry ("Give me Liberty, or give me death!") versus James Madison (1809-1817 U.S. President).

Revolutionary War hero and Virginia Governor Patrick Henry, an anti-federalist who opposed passage of the U.S. Constitution, wanted federalist Madison defeated in his 1788 election to the First United States House of Representatives.

To win, Madison proposed amending the Constitution with his "Bill of Rights" --  including the First Amendment (Free Speech Clause, etc.).

Proposition H issues from City Hall political disputes over ballot measures. It seeks to amend San Francisco`s Campaign and Governmental Code section 1.126, prohibiting public officials from soliciting or accepting contributions from certain City contractors for their controlled committees. Strangely, it allows "special interest" City employee unions to make such financial contributions. Worse, it appears to unconstitutionally violate First Amendment and Buckley vs. Valeo free speech requirements...by banning such spending on ballot measures.

Proposition H is being opposed by a wide spectrum of groups, from the Republican Central Committee to the Harvey Milk Democratic Club.

Vote "NO!".

Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
Republican Central Committeeman*
U.S. Supreme Court Plaintiff* (free speech cases: Geary vs. Renne, Mark vs. Corwin)

Eve Del Castello
Republican Central Committee Candidate*
Republican Forum President*

Doo Sup Park
Voting Alternate Delegate
San Francisco Republican Central Committee*

Stephanie Jeong
Republican Central Committeewoman*

Mike Garza
San Francisco Chapter President
Mexican American Political Association (MAPA)*

• For identification purposes only

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Buckley vs. Valejo, the great William F. Buckley (1925-2008) correctly attacked overly restrictive political campaign spending laws for being restrictive of free speech and the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. We need free discussion of ideas.

Proposition H purports to call for the amendment of San Francisco's Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code to prevent public officials from using funds from their controlled campaign committees for the support of City ballot measures. As the U.S. Supreme Court Justices noted in Buckley vs. Valejo, some candidates may be corrupted by campaign donations. Ideas and ballot propositions are not.

Passing Proposition H would restrict constitutional free speech. That is bad policy.

+ Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
Past County Chairman
San Francisco Republican Party*
(Founded: January 1856)

• For identification purposes only

Please help us continue the process of reform.

Vote Yes on Proposition H.

Mayor Gavin Newsom