Other Non Exempt Complaints, Complaint Filed By Plaintiff
Melbostad, Paul H. A Voter On Behalf Of Public
As To Defendant
Fisher, Donald G
Sutton, James R.
Heneghan, Kevin
Does 1 To 50, Inclusive
Summons Issued, Judicial Council Civil Case Cover Sheet Filed
Case Management Conference Scheduled For May-26-2006
Proof Of Service Due On Feb-21-2006
Case Management Statement Due On May-11-2006
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
PAUL H. MELBOSTAD VS. DONALD G FISHER et al
001001351798
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Page 2 10
li
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C C
SUMMONS ISSUED
L.
Paul H. Melbostad SB# 99951 san Francisco County Superior Court
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 1000 .
San Francisco, CA 94109-5494 nEC 23 200
AAK-LI, Clerk
415/673-5600 FAX:415/673-5606
Paul H. Melbostad, a vo | - ce
on behalf of public, \EXSE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET
In Pro Per
WAY 2620409 AM
DEPARTMENT 212
01 eweted 86am
tat OEE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
-, 80: 05-447978
PAUL H. MELBOSTAD, a voter, on behalf of Case N
ublic,
P COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC TO
Plaintiff, RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FOR
v. VIOLATIONS OF $500 LIMIT ON
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EXPENDITURES TO
DONALD G. FISHER, JAMES R. SUTTON, OPPOSE OR SUPPORT LOCAL
KEVIN HENEGHAN, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE
ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Defendants.
(C.C.P.§ 425.17; San Francisco Campaign and
Governmental Conduct Code Sections
1.114(c)}(1), (3), 1.168(b); 1.170(b); 2.10 et.seq.)
Plaintiff alleges:
1. Defendant DONALD G. FISHER (“FISHER”) made, and Defendants JAMES R. SUTTON
and KEVIN HENEGHAN solicited and accepted, contributions in excess of $500 (at least two
contributions of $24,500 each) for the purpose of opposing candidate GERARDO SANDOVAL and
supporting candidate MYRNA LIM, for Supervisor of District 11 of the City and County of San Francisco.
Only after being given notice of a hearing on an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to
enjoin them from continuing to accept, expend, and fail to report the contributions, SUTTON and
HENEGHAN, who identified themselves, respectively, as the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer of the
Committee, filed a Form 460 for a Committee which falsely and fraudulently stated that it was “Primarily
1.
31982B.doc: COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC TO RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Livit ON CONTRIBUTIONS FoR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOSE OR
Support LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONSPage 3 » * C _ C -
1 || Formed” as a “Ballot Measure Committee,” using a misleading name, Yes on Citizenship, No on F,
2 || designed to confuse local enforcement officials, to evade enforcement and imposition of the statutory
3 || penalties payable to the City of three times the amount of the contributions in excess of $500.
4 2. Allof the signs posted and all of the materials distributed by the Committee, were only posted
5 ||and distributed in Supervisorial District 11, rather than citywide, as they would be if the true purpose of the
¢ || Committee was to oppose a ballot measure voted on by voters in all eleven Districts of the City.
7 3. Defendant FISHER is an individual. Defendant FISHER willfully and intentionally made the
g || subject contributions far in excess of the $500 limit to the below-identified Committee, in order to launder
9 || them, for the purpose of funding expenditures to defeat candidate Sandoval and support candidate Myrna
10 || Lim, in hopes of deterring other Supervisors and elected officials from voting and acting contrary to his
11 {| personal economic interests, by threatening them with large contributions far above what the average voter
12 || can afford, for large expenditures to defeat them and elect their opponents, if they do so. The contribution
13 || limit was enacted to prevent such corruption of the legislative process by large contributions.
14 4, Defendants JAMES R. SUTTON (“SUTTON”) and KEVIN HENEGHAN (“HENEGHAN”),
i5 |{atall times relevant to this action, were an individual doing business in the City and County of
16 || San Francisco, California, as a professional campaign Treasurers. It is apparent that the alleged violations
17 || by them were intentional, since Defendants SUTTON and HENEGHAN were knowledgeable of all
18 || applicable Local and State Codes governing contributions for the subject signs and literature distributed,
19 ||since they practice as attomeys specializing in advising candidates and contributors on how to violate the
20 || Campaign Finance and other anti-corruption laws in a way that might evade enforcement penalties. Even
21 ||though SUTTON and HENEGHAN knew that the Committee was formed with the primary purpose of
22 || supporting and opposing candidates, particularly to urge voters in District 11 not to vote for Gerardo
23 || Sandoval for Supervisor in the November 2, 2004, election, and to vote for candidate Myrna Lim, on the
24 || Form 460 filed with the Ethics Commission on October 21, 2004, for the Committee entitled Yes On
25 || Citizenship, No On F. they willfully and intentionally checked the box and circle on the Form for a
26 || Committee Primarily formed to oppose a ballot measure, to attempt to avoid penalties for violations of the
27 || $500 contribution limit and other requirements governing committees making independent expenditures to
28
2.
ORE Me VioLarios OF $500 Lint ON CONTRIBUTIONS FoR EXPENDITURES To OPPOSE OR SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONSPage 4 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
support or oppose a candidate.
5. An integral part of the schemes SUTTON and HENEGHAN devise and orchestrate to evade
enforcement penalties, is that they themselves serve as the Treasurer of the committees so that they can
control how the contributions are reported, in order to launder them, and also avoid having to register as
Campaign Consultants, under the exception for campaign treasurers, as follows:
Section 1.505 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code of the City and County of
San Francisco provides the following definitions:
Whenever used in this Chapter, the following definitions shal! apply:
(a) “Campaign consultant” means any person or entity that receives or is promised
economic consideration equaling $1,000 or more in a calendar year for campaign
consulting services. The term "campaign consultant" includes any person or entity that
subcontracts with a campaign consultant to provide campaign consulting services, and
that receives or is promised economic consideration equaling $1,000 or more in a
calendar year for providing campaign consulting services. The term "campaign
consultant" does not include persons who are employees of a campaign consultant,
attorneys who provide only legal services, accountants who provide only accounting
services, pollsters who provide only polling services, and treasurers who provide only
those services which are required of treasurers by the Political Reform Act, California
Government Code Section 81000, et seq.
(b) "Campaign consulting services" means participating in campaign management or
developing or participating in the development of campaign strategy.
(c) "Campaign management" means conducting, coordinating or supervising a campaign
to elect, defeat, retain or recall a candidate, or adopt or defeat a measure, including but
not limited to hiring or authorizing the hiring of campaign staff and consultants, spending
or authorizing the expenditure of campaign funds, directing, supervising or conducting
the solicitation of contributions to the campaign, and selecting or recommending vendors
or subvendors of goods or services for the campaign.
(d) "Campaign strategy” means plans for the election, defeat, retention or recall of a
candidate, or for the adoption or defeat of a measure, including but not limited to
producing or authorizing the production of campaign literature and print and broadcast
advertising, seeking endorsements of organizations or individuals, seeking financing, or
advising on public policy positions.
(e) "Candidate" means a person who has taken affirmative action to seek nomination or
election to local office, a local officeholder who has taken affirmative action to seek
nomination or election to any elective office, or a local officeholder who is the subject of
a recall election.
(f) "Economic consideration” means any payments, fees, commissions, reimbursements
for expenses, gifts, or anything else of value.
3.
31982B.doc:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC To RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE To CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Limit ON CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOsE OR SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONSPage 5 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C- C-
(g) "Lobby" means communicate with a local officeholder for the purpose of influencing
local legislative or administrative action in exchange for economic consideration.
(h) "Lobbyist" is defined in Article I] of this Code.*
(i) “Local office” means the following elective offices in the City and County of San
Francisco: Mayor, Board of Supervisors, City Attorney, District Attorney, Treasurer,
Sheriff, Assessor, Public Defender, Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified
School District, and Governing Board of the San Francisco Community College District.
(j) "Measure" means a loca! referendum or local ballot measure, whether or not it
qualifies for the ballot.
(k) "Vendor" means a person or entity who sells goods or services, other than campaign
consulting services, including but not limited to printing, catering, and transportation
services. The term "vendor" does not include attorneys who provide only legal services,
accountants who provide only accounting services, pollsters who provide only polling
services, and treasurers who provide only those services which are required of treasurers
by the Political Reform Act, California Government Code Section 81000 et seq. (Added
by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000) (Derivation: Former Administrative
Code Section 16.541; added by Proposition G, 11/4/97).
6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1
through 50, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this
complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes
and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the
occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs’ injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by their
conduct.
7. Atall times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were the agents and employees of
their co-defendants, and in doing those things hereinafter alleged were acting within the course and scope
of the agency and with the permission and consent of their co-defendants.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the named defendants is
responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that each of the defendants has
combined and conspired with the others in committing the violations set forth below and has proximately
caused damage to plaintiff as herein stated.
4.
31982B.doe:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PuBLIC To RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Litt ON CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONSPage 6 10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in
C- Cc.
9, Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon alleges that each of the defendants has been and is
attempting to corrupt the legislative process in the City and County of San Francisco by committing the
alleged violations, particularly to improperly influence public policy decisions by loca! officials by
threatening those officials who are also, or will be, candidates, with the solicitation, contribution and
expenditure of far greater amounts, more than ten times, than the laws allow to defeat them and to elect
their opponents, if they do not accede to their demands to support, oppose, or amend legislation.
10. San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Sections 1.114(c){1), (3) state:
(c) LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMITTEES:
(1) Per Committee Limit. No person shall make, and no committee treasurer
shall solicit or accept, any contribution which will cause the total amount
contributed by such person to the committee to exceed $500 per calendar
year.
(2) Overall Limit. No person shall make, and no committee treasurer shall
solicit or accept, any contribution which will cause the total amount
contributed by such person to all committees to exceed $3,000 per calendar
year.
(3) Definitions. For purposes of this subsection, “committee” shall mean any
committee making expenditures to support or oppose a candidate, but shal!
not include candidates’ campaign committees.
Sections 1.162 entitled INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES FOR MASS MAILINGS
requires as follows:
“Any person who makes independent expenditures for a mass mailing which support or
oppose any candidate for City elective office shall place the following statement on the mailing in typeface
no smaller than 14 points:
Notice to Voters (Required by City and County of San Francisco)
This mailing is not authorized or approved by any candidate for City and County Office or
by any election official.
3.
31982B.do0:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC To RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Limit ON CONTRIBUTIONS FoR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONSPage 7 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
“26
27
28
C= C
It is paid for by (name and committee identification number). (address, city, state).
Total cost of this mailing is (amount).
(Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000;
Renumbered by Proposition O, 11/7/2000;
Amended by Ord. 141-03, File No. 030034, App. 6/27/2003
(Derivation: Former Administrative Code Section 16.510-7;
Added by Proposition N, 11/7/95).
11. Each of the alleged expenditures by the Committees and each of the alleged mailers and
handbills was for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate, so they were all subject to the limit of
Sections 1.114(c)(1),(3). Each of the alleged mailers was an independent expenditure to oppose a
candidate.
12. Commencing in October 2004, and continuing to the present, each of defendants caused to be
distributed to voters in District 11 written communications/handbills/literature that expressly advocate the
defeat of candidate Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, to oppose candidate Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval. The
handouts are of the type commonly referred to as “hit pieces”. Commencing in October 2004, and
continuing to the present, defendants DONALD G. FISHER, JAMES R. SUTTON, KEVIN HENEGHAN,
caused to be posted signs that expressly advocate the election of candidate MYRNA LIM, to support
candidate MYRNA LIM. Each of the alleged pieces of literature was paid for by contributions solicited
and received by defendants in excess of both the above-referenced $500 per committee and aggregate
contribution limits applying to committees making expenditures to support or oppose a candidate.
13. In making the expenditures to produce and distribute the alleged literature defendants, and each
of them, wrongfully made expenditures in violation of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental
Conduct Code, as well as other local and State laws, including the California Political Reform Act.
14, Prior to filing this action, on August 23, 2005, pursuant to §1.168(b) of the San Francisco
Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Plaintiff, by letter, gave written notice to City Attorney
Dennis Herrera of his intention to file this action, if the City Attorney did not, in sixty one days.
6.
31982B.doc:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PusLic To RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Limit ON ConTRIBUTIONS For EXPENDITURES To Oppose OR SUPPORT
Loca CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONSPage 8 10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C= C
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below:
1, Against each defendant, for penalties payable by each of the Defendants to the City and
County of San Francisco in the amount of three times the contributions made, solicited and accepted in
excess of $500, in a total amount of at least $145,500;
2. Foran Order Enjoining all Defendants to Cease and Desist making, soliciting, accepting, and
expending contributions in excess of $500 to and/or on behalf of the subject Committee;
3. Foran Order Requiring the Defendants to register and report as a Committee primarily formed
to oppose and support candidates;
4. Foran Order Requiring the Defendants to forfeit to the City and County of San Francisco any
remaining balance of funds in the Committee account and other assets of the Committee, including the sum
of $145,500, three times the amount solicited and accepted by James Sutton, as Treasurer, and Heneghan,
as Assistant Treasurer, of the Committee “Yes on Citizenship, No on F” from its sole contributor, Donald
G. Fisher, Chairman of Gap, Inc., and any remaining balance of other contributions in violation of the
violation of the $500 per person limit on contributions to committees formed to make expenditures for or
against candidates for elected offices of the City and County of San Francisco.
5. Forcosts of suit; and,
6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Dated: December 23, 2005.
Paul H. Melbostad
A voter, on behalf of the public
7.
31982B.do¢:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC TO RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF FoR
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Limit ON CONTRIBUTIONS FoR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOSE Or SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
AMT
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Des-23-2005 2:18 pm
Case Number: CGC-05-447978
Filing Date: Dec-23-2005 2:15
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01351798
» COMPLAINT
PAUL H. MELBOSTAD VS. DONALD G FISHER et al
001001351798
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
PDF Page 3
10
li
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C C
SUMMONS ISSUED
L.
Paul H. Melbostad SB# 99951 san Francisco County Superior Court
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 1000 .
San Francisco, CA 94109-5494 nEC 23 200
AAK-LI, Clerk
415/673-5600 FAX:415/673-5606
Paul H. Melbostad, a vo | - ce
on behalf of public, \EXSE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET
In Pro Per
WAY 2620409 AM
DEPARTMENT 212
01 eweted 86am
tat OEE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
-, 80: 05-447978
PAUL H. MELBOSTAD, a voter, on behalf of Case N
ublic,
P COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC TO
Plaintiff, RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FOR
v. VIOLATIONS OF $500 LIMIT ON
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EXPENDITURES TO
DONALD G. FISHER, JAMES R. SUTTON, OPPOSE OR SUPPORT LOCAL
KEVIN HENEGHAN, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE
ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Defendants.
(C.C.P.§ 425.17; San Francisco Campaign and
Governmental Conduct Code Sections
1.114(c)}(1), (3), 1.168(b); 1.170(b); 2.10 et.seq.)
Plaintiff alleges:
1. Defendant DONALD G. FISHER (“FISHER”) made, and Defendants JAMES R. SUTTON
and KEVIN HENEGHAN solicited and accepted, contributions in excess of $500 (at least two
contributions of $24,500 each) for the purpose of opposing candidate GERARDO SANDOVAL and
supporting candidate MYRNA LIM, for Supervisor of District 11 of the City and County of San Francisco.
Only after being given notice of a hearing on an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to
enjoin them from continuing to accept, expend, and fail to report the contributions, SUTTON and
HENEGHAN, who identified themselves, respectively, as the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer of the
Committee, filed a Form 460 for a Committee which falsely and fraudulently stated that it was “Primarily
1.
31982B.doc: COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC TO RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Livit ON CONTRIBUTIONS FoR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOSE OR
Support LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
PDF Page 4
» * C _ C -
1 || Formed” as a “Ballot Measure Committee,” using a misleading name, Yes on Citizenship, No on F,
2 || designed to confuse local enforcement officials, to evade enforcement and imposition of the statutory
3 || penalties payable to the City of three times the amount of the contributions in excess of $500.
4 2. Allof the signs posted and all of the materials distributed by the Committee, were only posted
5 ||and distributed in Supervisorial District 11, rather than citywide, as they would be if the true purpose of the
¢ || Committee was to oppose a ballot measure voted on by voters in all eleven Districts of the City.
7 3. Defendant FISHER is an individual. Defendant FISHER willfully and intentionally made the
g || subject contributions far in excess of the $500 limit to the below-identified Committee, in order to launder
9 || them, for the purpose of funding expenditures to defeat candidate Sandoval and support candidate Myrna
10 || Lim, in hopes of deterring other Supervisors and elected officials from voting and acting contrary to his
11 {| personal economic interests, by threatening them with large contributions far above what the average voter
12 || can afford, for large expenditures to defeat them and elect their opponents, if they do so. The contribution
13 || limit was enacted to prevent such corruption of the legislative process by large contributions.
14 4, Defendants JAMES R. SUTTON (“SUTTON”) and KEVIN HENEGHAN (“HENEGHAN”),
i5 |{atall times relevant to this action, were an individual doing business in the City and County of
16 || San Francisco, California, as a professional campaign Treasurers. It is apparent that the alleged violations
17 || by them were intentional, since Defendants SUTTON and HENEGHAN were knowledgeable of all
18 || applicable Local and State Codes governing contributions for the subject signs and literature distributed,
19 ||since they practice as attomeys specializing in advising candidates and contributors on how to violate the
20 || Campaign Finance and other anti-corruption laws in a way that might evade enforcement penalties. Even
21 ||though SUTTON and HENEGHAN knew that the Committee was formed with the primary purpose of
22 || supporting and opposing candidates, particularly to urge voters in District 11 not to vote for Gerardo
23 || Sandoval for Supervisor in the November 2, 2004, election, and to vote for candidate Myrna Lim, on the
24 || Form 460 filed with the Ethics Commission on October 21, 2004, for the Committee entitled Yes On
25 || Citizenship, No On F. they willfully and intentionally checked the box and circle on the Form for a
26 || Committee Primarily formed to oppose a ballot measure, to attempt to avoid penalties for violations of the
27 || $500 contribution limit and other requirements governing committees making independent expenditures to
28
2.
ORE Me VioLarios OF $500 Lint ON CONTRIBUTIONS FoR EXPENDITURES To OPPOSE OR SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
PDF Page 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
support or oppose a candidate.
5. An integral part of the schemes SUTTON and HENEGHAN devise and orchestrate to evade
enforcement penalties, is that they themselves serve as the Treasurer of the committees so that they can
control how the contributions are reported, in order to launder them, and also avoid having to register as
Campaign Consultants, under the exception for campaign treasurers, as follows:
Section 1.505 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code of the City and County of
San Francisco provides the following definitions:
Whenever used in this Chapter, the following definitions shal! apply:
(a) “Campaign consultant” means any person or entity that receives or is promised
economic consideration equaling $1,000 or more in a calendar year for campaign
consulting services. The term "campaign consultant" includes any person or entity that
subcontracts with a campaign consultant to provide campaign consulting services, and
that receives or is promised economic consideration equaling $1,000 or more in a
calendar year for providing campaign consulting services. The term "campaign
consultant" does not include persons who are employees of a campaign consultant,
attorneys who provide only legal services, accountants who provide only accounting
services, pollsters who provide only polling services, and treasurers who provide only
those services which are required of treasurers by the Political Reform Act, California
Government Code Section 81000, et seq.
(b) "Campaign consulting services" means participating in campaign management or
developing or participating in the development of campaign strategy.
(c) "Campaign management" means conducting, coordinating or supervising a campaign
to elect, defeat, retain or recall a candidate, or adopt or defeat a measure, including but
not limited to hiring or authorizing the hiring of campaign staff and consultants, spending
or authorizing the expenditure of campaign funds, directing, supervising or conducting
the solicitation of contributions to the campaign, and selecting or recommending vendors
or subvendors of goods or services for the campaign.
(d) "Campaign strategy” means plans for the election, defeat, retention or recall of a
candidate, or for the adoption or defeat of a measure, including but not limited to
producing or authorizing the production of campaign literature and print and broadcast
advertising, seeking endorsements of organizations or individuals, seeking financing, or
advising on public policy positions.
(e) "Candidate" means a person who has taken affirmative action to seek nomination or
election to local office, a local officeholder who has taken affirmative action to seek
nomination or election to any elective office, or a local officeholder who is the subject of
a recall election.
(f) "Economic consideration” means any payments, fees, commissions, reimbursements
for expenses, gifts, or anything else of value.
3.
31982B.doc:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC To RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE To CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Limit ON CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOsE OR SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
PDF Page 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C- C-
(g) "Lobby" means communicate with a local officeholder for the purpose of influencing
local legislative or administrative action in exchange for economic consideration.
(h) "Lobbyist" is defined in Article I] of this Code.*
(i) “Local office” means the following elective offices in the City and County of San
Francisco: Mayor, Board of Supervisors, City Attorney, District Attorney, Treasurer,
Sheriff, Assessor, Public Defender, Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified
School District, and Governing Board of the San Francisco Community College District.
(j) "Measure" means a loca! referendum or local ballot measure, whether or not it
qualifies for the ballot.
(k) "Vendor" means a person or entity who sells goods or services, other than campaign
consulting services, including but not limited to printing, catering, and transportation
services. The term "vendor" does not include attorneys who provide only legal services,
accountants who provide only accounting services, pollsters who provide only polling
services, and treasurers who provide only those services which are required of treasurers
by the Political Reform Act, California Government Code Section 81000 et seq. (Added
by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000) (Derivation: Former Administrative
Code Section 16.541; added by Proposition G, 11/4/97).
6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1
through 50, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this
complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes
and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the
occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs’ injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by their
conduct.
7. Atall times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were the agents and employees of
their co-defendants, and in doing those things hereinafter alleged were acting within the course and scope
of the agency and with the permission and consent of their co-defendants.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the named defendants is
responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that each of the defendants has
combined and conspired with the others in committing the violations set forth below and has proximately
caused damage to plaintiff as herein stated.
4.
31982B.doe:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PuBLIC To RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Litt ON CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
PDF Page 7
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in
C- Cc.
9, Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon alleges that each of the defendants has been and is
attempting to corrupt the legislative process in the City and County of San Francisco by committing the
alleged violations, particularly to improperly influence public policy decisions by loca! officials by
threatening those officials who are also, or will be, candidates, with the solicitation, contribution and
expenditure of far greater amounts, more than ten times, than the laws allow to defeat them and to elect
their opponents, if they do not accede to their demands to support, oppose, or amend legislation.
10. San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Sections 1.114(c){1), (3) state:
(c) LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMITTEES:
(1) Per Committee Limit. No person shall make, and no committee treasurer
shall solicit or accept, any contribution which will cause the total amount
contributed by such person to the committee to exceed $500 per calendar
year.
(2) Overall Limit. No person shall make, and no committee treasurer shall
solicit or accept, any contribution which will cause the total amount
contributed by such person to all committees to exceed $3,000 per calendar
year.
(3) Definitions. For purposes of this subsection, “committee” shall mean any
committee making expenditures to support or oppose a candidate, but shal!
not include candidates’ campaign committees.
Sections 1.162 entitled INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES FOR MASS MAILINGS
requires as follows:
“Any person who makes independent expenditures for a mass mailing which support or
oppose any candidate for City elective office shall place the following statement on the mailing in typeface
no smaller than 14 points:
Notice to Voters (Required by City and County of San Francisco)
This mailing is not authorized or approved by any candidate for City and County Office or
by any election official.
3.
31982B.do0:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC To RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Limit ON CONTRIBUTIONS FoR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
PDF Page 8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
“26
27
28
C= C
It is paid for by (name and committee identification number). (address, city, state).
Total cost of this mailing is (amount).
(Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000;
Renumbered by Proposition O, 11/7/2000;
Amended by Ord. 141-03, File No. 030034, App. 6/27/2003
(Derivation: Former Administrative Code Section 16.510-7;
Added by Proposition N, 11/7/95).
11. Each of the alleged expenditures by the Committees and each of the alleged mailers and
handbills was for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate, so they were all subject to the limit of
Sections 1.114(c)(1),(3). Each of the alleged mailers was an independent expenditure to oppose a
candidate.
12. Commencing in October 2004, and continuing to the present, each of defendants caused to be
distributed to voters in District 11 written communications/handbills/literature that expressly advocate the
defeat of candidate Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, to oppose candidate Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval. The
handouts are of the type commonly referred to as “hit pieces”. Commencing in October 2004, and
continuing to the present, defendants DONALD G. FISHER, JAMES R. SUTTON, KEVIN HENEGHAN,
caused to be posted signs that expressly advocate the election of candidate MYRNA LIM, to support
candidate MYRNA LIM. Each of the alleged pieces of literature was paid for by contributions solicited
and received by defendants in excess of both the above-referenced $500 per committee and aggregate
contribution limits applying to committees making expenditures to support or oppose a candidate.
13. In making the expenditures to produce and distribute the alleged literature defendants, and each
of them, wrongfully made expenditures in violation of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental
Conduct Code, as well as other local and State laws, including the California Political Reform Act.
14, Prior to filing this action, on August 23, 2005, pursuant to §1.168(b) of the San Francisco
Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Plaintiff, by letter, gave written notice to City Attorney
Dennis Herrera of his intention to file this action, if the City Attorney did not, in sixty one days.
6.
31982B.doc:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PusLic To RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF For
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Limit ON ConTRIBUTIONS For EXPENDITURES To Oppose OR SUPPORT
Loca CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
PDF Page 9
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C= C
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below:
1, Against each defendant, for penalties payable by each of the Defendants to the City and
County of San Francisco in the amount of three times the contributions made, solicited and accepted in
excess of $500, in a total amount of at least $145,500;
2. Foran Order Enjoining all Defendants to Cease and Desist making, soliciting, accepting, and
expending contributions in excess of $500 to and/or on behalf of the subject Committee;
3. Foran Order Requiring the Defendants to register and report as a Committee primarily formed
to oppose and support candidates;
4. Foran Order Requiring the Defendants to forfeit to the City and County of San Francisco any
remaining balance of funds in the Committee account and other assets of the Committee, including the sum
of $145,500, three times the amount solicited and accepted by James Sutton, as Treasurer, and Heneghan,
as Assistant Treasurer, of the Committee “Yes on Citizenship, No on F” from its sole contributor, Donald
G. Fisher, Chairman of Gap, Inc., and any remaining balance of other contributions in violation of the
violation of the $500 per person limit on contributions to committees formed to make expenditures for or
against candidates for elected offices of the City and County of San Francisco.
5. Forcosts of suit; and,
6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Dated: December 23, 2005.
Paul H. Melbostad
A voter, on behalf of the public
7.
31982B.do¢:9990-04 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC TO RECOVER PENALTIES PAYABLE TO CCSF FoR
VIOLATIONS OF $500 Limit ON CONTRIBUTIONS FoR EXPENDITURES TO OPPOSE Or SUPPORT
LOCAL CANDIDATES AND LAUNDERING THE ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Back to 
