Editorials:

Chronicle recommendations on Prop. C (lobbying disclosure) and Prop. E (online streaming and video testimony of public meetings).

Yes on C: Disclosure for all

San Francisco’s Ethics Commission unanimously put Proposition C on the ballot to assure that all groups spending at least $2,500 a month on lobbying City Hall play by the same rules.

It would require disclosure of spending and donations by individuals, businesses, labor unions, trade organizations or nonprofit groups that try to compel others to influence city officials. It also would prohibit groups that are engaging in such lobbying from providing gifts of more than $25 to a city official. That limit also would apply to influencing a government decision for the purpose of securing future employment.

Such transparency rules already apply to lobbyists who directly contact city officials.

It is equally important to extend these rules to the sources of “grassroots” campaigns that can be every bit as effective in shaping city policy. San Francisco had such guidelines until 2009. Such reporting requirements exist in the state and in other cities such as Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Jose.

One of the arguments against Prop. C is that it would be unduly burdensome on small nonprofit groups. Some of them have contended that $2,500 threshold is too low and the paperwork would be too extensive.

In meeting with our editorial board, representatives of a couple of the social-services nonprofits said it was unfair to put their efforts in the same category as advocacy by for-profit endeavors. They also don’t want their attempt to influence government policy labeled as “lobbying.”

But lobbying is lobbying. It’s not the role of government to decide which cause or which enterprise should be exempt from the basic rules of engagement. Some job-creating businesses would be equally passionate in arguing that they are no less dedicated to elevating opportunity and quality of life in the city.

“The bottom line: They don’t want disclosure and think they are entitled to act outside of public view,” said Larry Bush, a longtime champion of ethics in government.

We would prefer to have such a measure crafted by the Board of Supervisors, where it could be amended if problems arise. But the board has shown it can’t be trusted on this issue: nonprofits were exempted entirely when the board updated the direct lobbying law two years ago.

It’s up to the voters to ensure fair play. Vote yes on C.

No on E: Not ready to roll

Perhaps no measure on the Nov. 3 ballot has quite the feel-good story of Proposition E. It was conceived by students in David Lee’s online political science course at San Francisco State.

In assessing San Francisco’s public meetings, the students found that many of the sessions were unattended, young people were underrepresented in the audiences that did show up, and that other cities were more innovative in trying to close what Lee called the “participation gap.”

Their proposed remedy, Prop. E, is revolutionary. It would require all public meetings — among an estimated 120 boards and commissions, covering 2,000 meetings a year — to be streamed live on the Internet. Other provisions include: Meetings would need to be set up to accommodate digital testimony — live-streamed and recorded — during the session.

All remote public comments must be translated into English.

Boards and commissions would be required to offer a “time certain” scheduling of an agenda item if requested by 50 members of the public.

The students have identified legitimate deficiencies in city governance. Without question, public participation is stymied by the burden of having to take off school or work to testify at a hearing — which, in high-profile cases, often stretch long into the night.

But this measure is not without its logistical and cost challenges. Both the city Department of Technology and Controller’s Office have questioned whether Prop. E could be implemented within the required time frame.

We like both the spirit and the thought behind the measure. We would encourage City Hall to embark on pilot programs of live-streaming meetings and allowing video testimony. It would provide an opportunity to see whether virtual comments add or subtract from the quality of civic dialogue — and whether they actually make the deliberative process more effective and efficient or more plodding and subject to manipulation by special interests.

No other city has attempted such a digital-engagement project on anything close to this scale. It’s deserves testing before taking the leap.

Vote no on Prop. E.