Mark Farrell Sues Sf Over $191,000 Election-law Fine

Supervisor Mark Farrell, saying he’s the victim of a “witch hunt” by the San Francisco commission that enforces election rules, has sued the city in an attempt to erase a $191,000 fine for allegedly violating campaign finance laws. Farrell filed his suit in Superior Court against the city, the Ethics Commission — which says the supervisor’s campaign improperly coordinated 2010 election activities with an independent expenditure committee — and the treasurer, who is trying to collect the fine. Farrell wants the fine withdrawn and his attorney fees paid, in addition to unspecified “further relief.” “During what can only be described as a witch hunt, the Ethics Commission has systematically and blatantly ignored city law, as well as its own procedures, and is guilty of a gross violation of Supervisor Farrell’s rights,” said the lawsuit, which was filed last week. Matt Dorsey, spokesman for the city attorney’s office, said, “It’s the city attorney’s duty to vigorously defend taxpayers’ interests in civil litigation, and this case will be no different.” Farrell, a lawyer and venture capitalist then brand-new on the political scene, beat front-runner Janet Reilly by 258 votes. Reilly filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission after her upset loss, charging that Farrell and his campaign consultant, Chris Lee, had illegally worked with an independent expenditure committee that spent $191,000 in the final weeks of the race to defeat Reilly. The committee, Common Sense Voters, had just two donations: $141,000 from real estate magnate Thomas Coates and $50,000 from Dede Wilsey, a prominent socialite and president of the board that oversees the de Young and Legion of Honor museums. Federal law prohibits candidates or their campaign workers from coordinating with independent expenditure committees, which, unlike the candidates’ own campaigns, can receive unlimited amounts of money from individual donors. After further study, the city commission’s staff recommended that the payment be waived because Farrell was not named in the state’s enforcement action. “It became increasingly clear over time that the supervisor would never get a fair shake from the Ethics Commission,” Ballard said. “You have a supervisor in office now who was elected in 2010 on the basis of taking an illegal, corrupt $191,000 campaign contribution, and he has never been held accountable for it except by us,” Keane said.