Council member on $10,000 penalty sufficiency for Intro 12A
A council member asks whether the $10,000 per violation penalty is sufficient given the money involved. Molillo says honestly no, noting that for multimillion-dollar independent expenditure campaigns, a $10,000 fine years later may be seen as a cost of doing business, but the cap is set by statute.
Chair, do you mind if I ask one more question?
We wholeheartedly share your concerns about the ways that AI technology could be used to spread false information to intentionally mislead or deceive voters about council members and other city candidates and officeholders.
As it relates to Intro 12A, there is a $10,000 for each violation.
Violation penalty if there is no disclosure.
At the Campaign Finance Board, we have placed a priority on learning about artificial intelligence.
Do you think that is sufficient given the amount of money that is?
We have a unique perspective on this topic rooted in our dual mandate to serve candidates and voters.
Honestly, no.
Okay.
We sympathize with the perspective of both.
I want to be clear that my board, our board, has not taken an official position on a policy recommendation to increase the penalty cap, but I will share with you my views on that.
We wholeheartedly share your concerns about the ways that AI technology could be used to spread false information to intentionally mislead or deceive voters about council members and other city candidates and officeholders.
At the Campaign Finance Board, we have placed a priority on learning about artificial intelligence.
And if the council is amenable to considering an increase in the penalty cap, I'm sure my board would be happy to discuss it and develop a formal policy position on it.
We have a unique perspective on this topic rooted in our dual mandate to serve candidates and voters.
We sympathize with the perspective of both.
But that cap, $10,000, is in the law.
We wholeheartedly share your concerns about the ways that AI technology could be used to spread false information to intentionally mislead or deceive voters about council members and other city candidates and officeholders.
It's in the Campaign Finance Act for any violation.
The board cannot penalize more than $10,000.
If you have a multimillion-dollar independent expenditure campaign, they very well may consider a $10,000 fine a year or two after the election to be little more than the cost of doing business in elections.
At the Campaign Finance Board, we have placed a priority on learning about artificial intelligence.
We have a unique perspective on this topic rooted in our dual mandate to serve candidates and voters.
We sympathize with the perspective of both.
But we are constrained by the statute, by the Campaign Finance Act, and how we can penalize violations of every variety, including failure to file a disclosure report of the sort that would be required by Intro 12A.
We wholeheartedly share your concerns about the ways that AI technology could be used to spread false information to intentionally mislead or deceive voters about council members and other city candidates and officeholders.
At the Campaign Finance Board, we have placed a priority on learning about artificial intelligence.
I would also jump in to note that after every citywide election, we are required by the city charter to publish a post-election report where we take a look at how the program worked, how well we administered it, and also make recommendations to improve it.
We have a unique perspective on this topic rooted in our dual mandate to serve candidates and voters.
We sympathize with the perspective of both.
We wholeheartedly share your concerns about the ways that AI technology could be used to spread false information to intentionally mislead or deceive voters about council members and other city candidates and officeholders.
And this very issue is a live issue under debate at our agency right now for inclusion in that post-election report, which will be published in September.
At the Campaign Finance Board, we have placed a priority on learning about artificial intelligence.
We have a unique perspective on this topic rooted in our dual mandate to serve candidates and voters.
So we expect to come before the council again and speak about all the recommendations that we have.
We sympathize with the perspective of both.
But this is certainly one of the big ones that has come up.
We wholeheartedly share your concerns about the ways that AI technology could be used to spread false information to intentionally mislead or deceive voters about council members and other city candidates and officeholders.
As Paul mentioned, we're discussing it internally.
We've heard a lot from the good government groups and advocates about their concerns in this area as well.
At the Campaign Finance Board, we have placed a priority on learning about artificial intelligence.
And it has some intersection with this bill because right now we are capped at 10,000, but theoretically that could change.
We have a unique perspective on this topic rooted in our dual mandate to serve candidates and voters.
Okay.
We sympathize with the perspective of both.
Thank you.
We wholeheartedly share your concerns about the ways that AI technology could be used to spread false information to intentionally mislead or deceive voters about council members and other city candidates and officeholders.
Thank you very much.
We really appreciate your testimony.