Candidates trying to oust progressives from San Francisco’s branch of the Democratic Party, which maintains the party’s imprimatur on local election endorsements, have raised almost four times as much money as their progressive rivals, according to new campaign finance filings.
San Francisco Democrats for Change, a coalition of 24 candidates, is vying to take control of the Democratic County Central Committee in the March 5, 2024, election, and have raised at least $1,160,371 as of Jan. 20, according to filings released Thursday by the Ethics Commission.
Rival progressives, on the other hand, who are organized as the Labor and Working Families slate, have raised just $313,955 in the same period — 27 percent of the their rivals’ take.
Data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission. Amounts include all donations of $100 or larger as of Jan. 20 and any donations above $1,000 as of February 1. Information on which candidates are running for each slate was obtained from their respective websites, Labor and Working Families and SF Dems for Change. Chart by Kelly Waldron. For the optimal experience, use the desktop version.
The 32-member DCCC, which progressives have controlled since 2016, is “the most insider San Francisco political thing you can imagine,” said Jim Ross, a 30-year political consultant in the city who now focuses on progressive candidates and causes. Yet, it’s incredibly important: The November presidential election will turn out a wide swath of the city, including voters ill-informed about local politics.
The official endorsement of the Democratic Party’s local chapter will be significant for the races on the ballot — supervisors, propositions, mayoral candidates and more.
Voters are “looking for information from a trusted source, and there’s no more trusted source in San Francisco politics than the Democratic Party,” said Ross.
Yet money for the candidates trying to oust the progressives may not necessarily translate into votes. March elections bring in a smaller portion of the electorate: 49 percent, on average, since 2012, compared to 80 percent for presidential races. The sort of voters who show up in March may have, largely, already made up their minds.
“The people who vote on it care, and they’re Democratic activists, so they already know how they’re going to vote,” said Ross. “I don’t know how much money actually matters in that race.”
Added David Latterman, a retired consultant on the moderate side: “Money really can’t overcome name recognition in a race this down-ticket, in a race where someone has to check off a dozen names.”
DCCC fundraising helps those running for supe
Four of the candidates for DCCC (“D-triple-C”) are also running in November’s supervisorial elections, when half the Board of Supervisors is up for grabs. Running for DCCC, in addition to elected office, serves as a financial and publicity springboard.
By spending and campaigning now, those four candidates — District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, District 1 hopeful Marjan Philhour, District 5 candidate Bilal Mahmood and District 9 contender Trevor Chandler — can meet and greet potential voters, mail flyers to their homes, and increase name recognition.
The race, Latterman said, is a means to “getting your name out there, and a gauge of how popular you are in your district.”
The contest also allows candidates to evade the $500 contribution limit for their supervisor races: The central committee is regulated at the state level, so candidates can accept unlimited funds from individuals and corporations, the latter of whom cannot give in city contests at all.
The bulk of the giving to the oppositional DCCC candidates has gone toward just three candidates: Mahmood ($220,650), Philhour ($176,145) and Michael Lai ($101,636).
Both Mahmood and Philhour are running for supervisor. Mahmood, a former President Barack Obama staffer who lost a State Assembly race in 2022, has emphasized faster housing construction, public-private partnerships to address homelessness, and staffing up frontline workers, including police.
Philhour has emphasized public safety and street cleanliness in her campaign, calling for more officers, increased arrests of drug users and dealers, and the removal of homeless encampments.
Chandler, another candidate in the oppositional DCCC slate, is running in District 9 in an open seat. He has raised $32,836 as part of his DCCC race which, added to his fundraising totals specifically for the District 9 race, makes him the candidate with the most money raised in the contest.
Among progressives, Sal Rosselli, the founder and president of the National Union of Healthcare Workers (which, despite its name, largely represents workers in California) is leading the pack, with $63,661 fundraised.
District 1 Supervisor Chan has raised $37,135, while Patrick Bell of UA Local 38, the plumbers and steamfitters union, has raised $36,248.
Tech donors are the key source of money
By far the biggest contributors to the slate of candidates trying to unseat progressives are millionaire and billionaire tech donors.
Chris Larsen, co-founder of cryptocurrency exchange Ripple, has given $80,000 to three candidates, Philhour, Mahmood and Luis Zamora. Larsen is a heavy donor to this year’s races and, historically, to moderate causes in San Francisco.
He has given $931,000 in the 2024 elections, largely supporting Mayor London Breed’s re-election ($250,500) and her two ballot measures, Proposition E ($250,000) for police deregulation and Proposition F ($250,000) for welfare drug screening.
Jeremy Liew, a venture capitalist, has given $71,000 to five candidates, Philhour, Mahmood, Lai, Peter Lee and Lanier Coles. Liew has given $122,000 total for 2024 contests, most of it towards Prop. E ($50,000) and the DCCC races.
Ron Conway, venture capitalist and the preferred financier of the late Mayor Ed Lee, has given $41,000 to three candidates: District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani, Philhour and Mahmood. Conway, a frequent campaign donor, is giving heavily this election cycle, too: $168,000 for 2024 races, most of it ($100,000) towards Prop. E.
Y Combinator, the famed startup accelerator based in San Francisco, is well-represented among donors: At least $82,000 comes from those who marked the incubator as their employer, likely an undercount, not including those previously associated with the firm.
Jessica Livingston, one of the firm’s co-founders, has given $20,000 to Mahmood, while her husband, Paul Graham, another co-founder, has given $10,000 to two candidates, Chandler and Nancy Tung.
Livingston, for her part, is spending large in November, too: $50,000 towards unseating District 5 supervisor Dean Preston; Graham is giving $500 each to Chandler and Philhour’s supervisorial races.
Garry Tan, the current Y Combinator CEO whose online rant last weekend prefaced real-world threats to several supervisors, has given $12,000 to four candidates, Mahmood, Tung, Lai and Jade Tu. Tan is heavily involved in San Francisco politics: He frequently rails against progressive politicians in the city, hosts fundraisers for their moderate opponents, and has urged fellow tech executives to organize and “retake” San Francisco.
Tan has given $64,850 towards 2024 races, the majority ($50,000) towards unseating his bête noire, Preston, from District 5.
… while progressives rely on unions
On the progressive side, the biggest donors are not individuals, but unions — albeit at a far lower scale.
IFPTE 21, a public sector workers’ union, has given $27,500 towards the slate, largely to District 1 Supervisor Chan ($25,500). IFPTE is also spending $200,000 towards Proposition B, increasing police staffing levels.
The National Union of Healthcare Workers has spent some $10,000 towards electing its president, Rosselli. SEIU 2015, a caretakers’ union, has spent $6,000 towards the slate, while a handful of other unions have spent $5,000 or less each.
Bilal Mahmood, who is running for both Democratic County Central Committee/DCCC and District 5 supervisor, is having real trouble keeping the two campaigns separate. This is required by law.
Candidates for DCCC can take unlimited campaign contributions, whereas candidates for supervisor cannot take more than $500 from any individual. And so using money donated to a DCCC campaign for a supervisoral campaign is a potentially serious violation.
Mahmood recently sent out a district wide mailer for his DCCC campaign that included his “Bilal for Supervisor” logo. On X/Twitter, Mahmood blamed a “campaign consultant” for the error.
Also wondering when Bilal Mahmood will denounce Garry Tan’s unhinged death wishes against 7 democratically elected supervisors posted on Twitter/X last week. Will Mahmood return Tan’s $5000 campaign donation? One wonders: how would Mahmood feel if Tan had called for his slow death?
This election year is really, genuinely awful.
For the first time in 30 years, I really have deep concerns our city is passing a point of no return for anyone who doesn’t have considerable wealth, or anyone who isn’t willing to believe those with the wealth care anything for anyone else but themselves.
Not sure what part of the city these tech workers mean to “take back.” Sounds like a very MAGA-like sound bite to me. Take back the city from whom, exactly?
I wouldn’t trust these millionaires and billionaires at all. They’ll gladly take votes, of course, but don’t ask them for any support for what makes the rest of the city operate.
ML, with so few people actually paying close attention to the real money, people, and motivations behind this election, is there any reason to be hopeful — for the rest of us?
Any reason to really learn about these ballot measures and vote, when money is doing a whole lot of talking.
(This coming from a naturalized citizen by choice who takes this stuff very seriously. By ML standards, I suppose I’m neither a progressive nor a moderate.)
Thank you so much for your reporting.
I am going with the unions’ endorsements and not the billionaires. Ever the billionaires.
Then you should check your local union endorsements because a number of unions are supporting the “moderate” Democrats for Change slate including NorCal Carpenters Union and LiUna Local 261. The other slate doesn’t have a monopoly on the unions even though they want you to think that with their name.
Hi Lyn! Joshua Rudy Ochoa here, running for SFDCCC on the Labor & Working Families slate, happy to pitch in.
With all due respect to the endorsement processes of NorCal Carpenters Union and LiUANA Local 261, which are incredible local unions who dedicate themselves to protecting their workers, the Labor & Working Families slate is a group of dedicated community organizers who believe in putting workers, families, and organized labor FIRST.
Our slate is endorsed by the San Francisco Labor Council, the San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council, SEIU 1021 (the largest union in SF), SEIU 2015 (the largest union in California), AFT Local 2121, IFPTE Local 21, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the United Educators of San Francisco, and the list continues.
As working class people, we believe in advancing workers’ ability to organize, strike, and bargain for better working conditions. We center our values around kitchen table issues like workers’ rights, tenants’ rights, socioeconomic & racial justice, and access to an equitable education for all regardless of income. It’s not all about endorsements, it’s about the values that you lead with and bring to the table when discussing issues about which campaigns to endorse, and how to get our collective communities engaged in the conversation.
When it comes to advancing educational equity like issues around Math and English scores across SFUSD, we believe in supporting ALL students having access to the courses they need to thrive. That means adequately funding public education, paying teachers living wages, and ensuring our most vulnerable young people have access to critical resources that allow them to focus on their education.
That being said, the SF Democrats for Change slate has largely been funded by billionaires, corporate interests, and supporters of the status quo that continue to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. The Labor & Working Families slate is NOT for sale, and we will never be influenced by big-money corporate interests. We will continue to fight for the working class people of San Francisco. Thank you.
We have decades of evidence of how the politicos associated with the Labor & Working Families slate roll, and it is not putting workers, families AND organized labor FIRST. City funded nonprofit social services are proxies for “workers and families.” At least “organized labor” is honest.
Had those politicos done what they claim and not severed their connection to residents, then we’d not have seen a 15 year progressive political collapse that culminated in gerrymandering, recalls, Campos getting shellacked by an empty suit like Haney (who progs endorsed for SFUSD and D6) and a 6th straight punitive anti-homeless ballot measure poised to cruise to victory.
Instead of organizing San Franciscans to build a grassroots, bottom-up base, these “community organizers” think that they can parachute in an astroturf campaign, market it as progressive, and return to the servicing of nonprofit and labor claims on government funds.
This might be slightly less worse than the alt right tech operation, but this kind of leadership over the past 20 years has led to progressive political collapse and the rise of the alt right.
If winning the DCCC were sufficient, and the progressive branded winners have controlled the DCCC as often as not, then politics would look very different.
None of the nonprofits, nor public sector unions nor tech billionaires reflect the interests of progressive San Francisco residents, not to mention San Franciscans within the expanded margins required to win contested elections.
This is only news to those who’ve insisted upon culturing an atmosphere of willful denial where stated intentions alone are sufficient.
Hi Rudy,
Happy to respond for Lyn on this one. Your slate has controlled the DCCC for the last 6 years and in that 6 years, San Francisco has become the poster child for out of control homelessness, spiraling Fentanyl use and dealing, blocking housing at every turn, and schools that became a laughing stock of the nation during the pandemic. The progressive record in this town is awful and I think many of us feel that it is time for this failed experiment to end and for adults to assume the leadership of our Democratic party, our Board of Supervisors, our School Board, our dogcatcher, and every other race in this city.
Signed – a lifelong Democrat and liberal
Then you should check your favorite union endorsements because many local unions are supporting Democrats for Change, the “moderates”. The other slate used that name to trick people. They are definitely not supported by all unions and they are not for families with kids. That slate is unfortunately against teaching 8th grade Algebra to kids in the SF school district, leaving our public school kids far behind those from independent schools and surrounding counties. Meanwhile the billionaires’ kids are learning algebra in 8th grade. Therefore, the billionaires’ kids will be ahead in high school, college, and in all STEM careers as a result. The DCCC “progressive” slate is regressive for SF kids. They have only ideological, bad, and dangerous ideas and they are what’s wrong with SF.
Where did you lean that 8th grade algebra was the primary determinant of academic and life success?
Wait… How did Jane Kim get added to the “progressive” list? She’s 50% of the reason housing is so unaffordable! Along with Mayor Ed Lee she was the champion of the mid-Market tax break (Twitter tax break) that caused our city to be (even more) over-run with tech workers paid insanely high salaries which allowed landlords to raise rents to (even more) outrageous levels. Unless/until she publicly apologizes for that I could never vote for her for anything. Her addition to the list makes me wonder about how “progressive” the other candidates on the list are.
Jesus Christ the whining. Twitter was *one tech company*. The tech boom is what allowed the tax collections to double to $14B and tech companies pretty much underwrite much of business taxes collected by the city.
So, by the usage of the descriptor “moderate” in this article, people who support rent control, tenants’ rights, vacancy taxes, unions, workers’ rights, fair wages, transparent government, ranked-choice voting, neighborhood supervisors, equitable taxes on the rich & wealthy, and a non-social Darwinian approach to homelessness, and who oppose genocide, ethnic cleansing, and rampant militarism are “immoderate.”
Good to know!
The gaslighting just won’t end, will it?
The problem here is that the SEIU and Jane Kim slates offer up little more than a vague political premise that’s not justified by the record of those involved and would do little more than keep the spigots open for labor and the political nonprofits.
They did not organize against gerrymandering when they had the chance. In fact the prog supes nominated a politically compromised appointee of color to Redistricting over a reliable progressive white male and progressive residents took the hit. Let’s call that the Jane Kim syndrome.
On homelessness, 25 years of cashing checks and marking time while advocating “be compassionate, do nothing” and losing 5, coming on 6 straight divisive homeless ballot measures that have boosted name recognition for successive conservative politicos who then captured the progs in nonprofits with city contracts.
These revenue measures effectively gift conservative mayors resources with which to screw the progressive agenda.
This is typical Democrat Party “box checking” where throw aways are given to social justice but the follow through with policy ends up making matters worse all around, all while those with the contracts don’t trust residents to keep the spigots open and their good thing going.
The interests of San Francisco residents are no more represented by the labor/nonprofit slate than they are with the alt right tech slate.