San Francisco’s public financing program could turn into a scaled back version, but the Board of Supervisors postponed a vote Tuesday on doing just that.

Supporters of scaling back the program say San Francisco has no choice after a June Supreme Court ruling struck down Arizona's public financing program. And if The City doesn’t make the change it would be sued which would then waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money on a case it can’t win.

But not everyone agrees. Supervisor Jane Kim was among those who didn’t support the change.

“Our case is slightly different in that we are a partial public financing system and the amount of chilling to first amendment speech is far less than in the Arizona case,” Kim said. She requested a postponement to have a closed session Tuesday to go over the legal points in more detail.

The law requires eight votes to be approved, and on Tuesday it looked like there were only six.

Supervisor Mark Farrell -- who with Supervisor Sean Elsbernd introduced the legislation that would change the program -- agreed to a postponement, but made his position clear.

“I believe our laws in San Francisco should not violate the Supreme Court’s decisions,” Farrell said. He said that “we need to avoid another expensive lawsuit that will once again cost our taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco had previously sued The City over campaign finance laws and recently won a settlement of about $300,000. The group is considering another lawsuit if this change is not adopted.

“If they vote next week and vote to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling then we have no problem,” said Ken Ceaveland, director of public affairs for the Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco, which represents the interests of downtown’s commercial building owners and managers.

The change could impact this year’s mayoral race where nine candidates are receiving public financing.

These candidates agree to spend no more than $1,475,000 on their campaign in a total combination of matching public and private contributions. Candidates receive up to $900,000 in public funds, but if independent expenditures for or against a candidate exceed that limit, then the spending limit is lifted accordingly and the candidate can receive more public funds.

But the legislation would eliminate the increase in matching funds. In other words, there would be a hard cap on the $900,000 no matter how much third-party spending against or in support of a candidate was spent.