If you wonder why a non-binding resolution on the ballot is generating so much attention, look at the recent campaign finance reports. With unlimited contributions to ballot measure campaigns (mandated by the courts), Proposition V has become an end-run to influence races for the Board of Supervisors. The Police Officers Association endorsed District 1 candidate Sue Lee—but by law they can only give her campaign $500 (which they did.) So they also gave $5000 to “Choice for Students”—a campaign committee supporting Proposition V, which will target Lee’s progressive opponent Eric Mar. The Association of Realtors also endorsed Lee, and gave $5000 to the Prop V campaign. So did Plan C, which gave $10,000. The SF Chamber of Commerce gave $15,000 to the effort—and Gap CEO Don Fisher gave a whopping $20,000. And it’s all perfectly legal. Meanwhile, PG&E has had to file disclosure forms with the Ethics Commission after their campaign to oppose Proposition H (the Clean Energy Act) sent out a mailer promoting District 4 Supervisor Carmen Chu—who’s up for re-election in November. If Prop V sends out a hit piece in District 1 attacking “Eric Mar and the School Board” for opposing JROTC, will they likewise be required to disclose it as a contribution?

Proposition V has no legal enforceability—it’s simply a policy statement that, if passed by the voters, would have the political weight of saying the people support JROTC. Prop V supporters even admit their measure is just a political statement—that their campaign is about pressuring the School Board to reverse its position on phasing out JROTC (a federal program designed to recruit young people into the military.) But judging by the campaign filings that were due September 30th, it’s apparent that wealthy interests seeking to influence the District 1 Supervisor race are using Prop V as a soft-money conduit.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Plan C, the Association of Realtors, police officer’s union, and Gap CEO Don Fisher have all contributed big bucks to the Prop V campaign. Lee may have gotten $100 from Steve Falk (the Chamber’s President), but the Chamber then dropped $15,000 to help Prop V. Plan C hosted a fundraiser for Sue Lee where its members contributed, but they also gave $10,000 to the Prop V effort. The police officers union can only give Lee $500 directly, so they gave ten times as much ($5,000) to promoting Prop V.

But Don Fisher, the Republican businessman who single-handedly tried to ruin our City’s transit-first policy, has outdone all the other contributors—a $20,000 donation to promoting the School District’s military recruitment program.

According to San Francisco law, candidates for municipal office can only receive a maximum of $500 per donor. But donations to a ballot measure campaign (“pro” or “con”) have no limits. That’s because the Courts have ruled that money is “free speech,” and all the consequences that derive from that. Giving to a ballot measure campaign is “direct speech” that cannot be abridged, they said, but giving to a candidate is “indirect speech.” It’s not okay to limit what you can give to a ballot proposition (after all, a donor is just “expressing their view” on a policy issue), whereas the state has an interest to stem corrupting elected officials—so it’s okay to limit what you can give to a candidate.

But what happens when a Proposition gets used as an indirect conduit to influence the outcome of a candidate race? If groups who can “corrupt” an elected official with their vast resources instead give money to a proposition that helps that candidate’s cause, isn’t the likelihood of corruption equally prevalent? In District 1, powerful interests like the Chamber of Commerce, the police officers’ union, the realtors and Plan C have endorsed Sue Lee. They have every right to give money to her campaign, but the law says they can only give her up to $500. These groups can afford to give a lot more, so how can they use their superior financial resources to more powerfully affect that election’s outcome?

Enter Proposition V—whose stated purpose is to call on the School Board to reverse a controversial decision it made on JROTC. Lee’s progressive challenger, Eric Mar, is on the School Board and supported that move—and JROTC advocates have already dogged his campaign events. If JROTC continues to be a “wedge issue” for the District 1 race (after all, there’s no reason why it should be a main issue in that election because the Board of Supervisors can’t tell the School Board what to do), Eric Mar could lose. If you want Sue Lee to win the election, and you can afford to give more than $500, what’s stopping you from contributing an ungodly amount of cash to the Prop V cause?

Of course, the S.F. Ethics Commission isn’t powerless about it. All the District 1 candidates agreed to a voluntary spending limit that entitles them to public campaign funds—but if there’s evidence that independent expenditures are meddling in the race, they can lift the cap so candidates can defend themselves. They did this in 2006 for the District 6 race, after an onslaught of Downtown money against Supervisor Chris Daly proved that the voluntary spending limit had been violated. If the Prop V campaign sends out hit-pieces attacking Eric Mar, the Ethics Commission should lift the cap so he can fight back.

Already in this cycle, PG&E has had to file disclosure forms for using a ballot measure campaign (with its unlimited contributions) to improperly influence a candidate campaign. As of September 30th, the private utility company has spent a whopping $4 million to defeat Proposition H—the Clean Energy Act, which would mandate renewable energy levels for the City and require a study to determine the most effective way to achieve it. One of its many hit-pieces featured a prominent photo of District 4 Supervisor Carmen Chu—who says Prop H “doesn’t make sense for our district or our city.” Chu is up for re-election.

PG&E has been required to file a special form with the Ethics Commission—disclosing that this one piece of mail (sent out on September 4th to District 4 residents) cost nearly $15,000. In the final four weeks, expect more of these shenanigans to happen.