Thread by @shayshinecastle

OK, next public hearing is about changes to Boulder's campaign laws. Essentially, the city wants to require names behind political advertising be made public. There are some other things in there, too: Council visited this issue in December. dailycamera.com/news/boulder/c…

There are also changes to the complaint process, including that complaints against election spending be made public, along with final decision by the city clerk on whether or not a violation occurred.

I'm actually just going to copy and paste my notes on the major changes:
1. Natural persons behind candidate contributions must be identified; if $$ comes from an entity (political group, company, etc.) the natural persons behind it would have to be identified.....

....but only if the candidate in question accepts matching funds from the city.

Also, amount of matching funds will rise with inflation, using the Denver-Boulder-Greeley index, every two years. Candidates must spend less than $20,740 to qualify for matching funds.

2. Committees that engage in political advertising now have to disclose how much they spent. So if an issue committee and a candidate committee go in together, their respective costs and expenditures need to be documented in proportion to what they spent.

3. Ads for/against ballot measures must disclose who paid for them, including individual names, not just groups. “Top 3 contributors” means 3 ppl who did over $1K. Also sets font, size, type, etc. details for other types of advertising.

4. City clerk is election complaint administrator, instead of city manager, bc mgr reports to city council directly. Clerk’s final determination on the complaint will be made public. ....

....Hearing officers will be used in complaint process if clerk’s decision is appealed; officers will be from outside Boulder and not active in local politics.

5. Complainant will be asked if they want to go through an administrative hearing process. If not, city clerk will determine if complaint has merit and should be investigated. Also adds criminal penalties for campaign finance disclosure violations.

OK, that's all probably mostly accurate.
Luis Toro, senior assistant city attorney (and formerly of Colorado Ethics Watch) is presenting and asking questions now

We're talking penalties for ppl/groups that violate campaign laws.

Somewhat related but different is that Boulder may start allowing electronic and online signature-gathering for petitions. 71.7% of voters in November OK'd a change in the city charter to allow this, but it didn't actually create the system to do so.

It won't happen in time for the 2019 election; Boulder will need Denver's help with this (Denver already does it) but staff are too busy until after April.

Boulder is working to license Denver software for online petitions; ordinance will go into effect 30 days after software agreement. May not be able to license and then will have to develop its own, which will be more costly and time-consuming

Actually.... Carr said that since staff wrote this, Boulder found out that it *might* be able to get software.

I *think* council is talking about when to release info to the public about election complaints. City won't release incomplete reports, Toro says. And might not do a release if it interferes with a criminal or court proceeding.

"Anything weird during an election causes distress and a cloud" of distrust, Jones says.
"The presumption it will be released unless there is a concern" about certain criteria, Weaver clarifies.

I'm sorry; I'm not sure if this is making any sense. I'm exhausted, tbh.

Carlisle: "It's about transparency."

We're moving to public hearing.

Matt Benjamin, from the election and campaign working group, is first to speak. "Thank you for taking this on and taking our recommendations, but also for moving quickly."

Benjamin: changes to complaint process is to "expedite the process" for when the clerk is busy during election season. "This closes loopholes and brings us to the 21st century for election integrity."

"We did not create any of these (suggestions) from scratch," Benjamin says, but pulled examples from surrounding communities.

"It allows us to strip away a lot of the fear and negativity" that were going on, particularly in the last election. "Gets us back to what elections should be about," instead of concerns about dark money and things like that.

"This working group was brought as a reaction. I would encourage you to think about what proactive steps we can take."

Working group has suggested a permanent elections/campaign board or commission to keep on top of best practices.

Props to Carolyn Bninski and Evan Ravitz, the next 2 public speakers, who have been here since the beginning. Bninski says she is staying till 12 "in solidarity."

Council chambers on Tuesday night is the place to be. We've got signs; we've got snacks. We've got snappy comebacks.

"How often do we read petitions that we sign?" Bninski says. Online petitioning would give people time to research. "Priority is to do what public thought you were doing, which is online petitions at your computer, at home."

Ravitz also against the phasing in of alternative petitioning (doing electronic first, then online). To clarify, electronic petitioning is, like, signing a tablet. Online is, like, Change.org.

"While we're waiting on Denver elections, we should go ahead and let MapLight present what they have." (MapLight is a nonprofit that wants to help us with an interface.) maplight.org

"We have a superior, free offer. We're ready to go."

Ravitz also served on the working group.

Weaver: MapLight's software doesn't exist as you describe it. So it doesn't seem like this would be ready to go for 2019 either. There's no way they could write it and test it, bc there's all sorts of data concerns.

Ravitz: Should be real easy for 2020.

Electronic petitioning creates a "premium" group of petition-gatherers who can use iPads. They are outpacing paper petition signatures in Denver.
Jones: So it's a good thing, but you have to have iPads.

Sorry, that was a question from Jones

Ravitz: No one will use it except for wealthy people; that creates a special interest group.

"I think it's a distraction, like natural gas is a bridge to the future. Not quite; it's destroying the planet."

James Duncan is quoting the late Leslie Nielsen. "He who holds the scorecard has a great advantage."

I'm sure he'll get to his point soon.

He must have, but I missed it. Public hearing is closed.

These items will go to third reading, I believe.

Staff plans to start public training on the new campaign rules in May, and committee training later this summer.

Jones: "If we're not going to make 2019 for e-signatures, it seems to me like we go straight to" online signatures, Phase 2
Weaver: Doing something temporarily, for one year, that might not even be used, is a distraction.

"If this is a one-off that doesn't even have community support for the e-signatures," it's not worth it, Weaver adds.
Morzel concurs.

Carlisle: "I would welcome" members of temporary working group to work on this via an elections commission or board.
Morzel: Down the road...
Jones: Let's put that in the parking lot of good ideas, for the next guys

David Gehr, another city attorney, suggests passing this ordinance tonight on emergency.

Young kept a "list" of problems during the 2017 election; working group covered them all, she said.

Council votes unanimously on changes for campaign and election rules.

RE: online and electronic petitioning: City staff is going to figure out a timeline and workplan for that. "So we can figure out a little bit more how to make this happen," Brautigam said.

That's the end of this issue. New thread starting for the rest of the night's issues.

Probably the last unroll of the night, @threadreaderapp, if you would be so kind.