A new political action committee — backed largely by tech money and known as Families for a Vibrant San Francisco — has emerged as the largest single donor in the March 5 election for the Democratic County Central Committee, San Francisco’s branch of the Democratic Party.
The “D-triple-C” holds the coveted power to officially endorse candidates and measures on behalf of the party. Its endorsement is key in a presidential election year, when less-informed voters will be looking to the Democratic Party’s official seal of approval to fill out their ballots.
The Families PAC has given at least $239,909 this year to candidates for the DCCC, according to campaign finance filings — 16 percent of the total spending. Those filings capture all donations through Jan. 20 and larger ones since then.
And the PAC has yet another $212,210 left in its war chest, meaning that, without raising an additional dollar, it could still give more than $50,000 every week until the election.
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 PAC supports the San Francisco Democrats for Change slate, a group of 24 candidates trying to oust progressives from the obscure but influential party body.
Collectively, the San Francisco Democrats for Change slate has outraised its progressive rivals nearly 4-1.
The oppositional slate is hoping to retake the DCCC from progressives, who have controlled it — and the Democrats’ endorsement process — since 2016. In November, those endorsements will be key for voters seeking advice on supervisors, the mayor and ballot measures.
The Families PAC is headed by Todd David, former executive director of the Housing Action Coalition and one of the main forces behind the school board recalls.
David is also behind the recently-launched Abundant SF, a group planning to spend millions on local races to elect pro-housing, pro-transit candidates.
This spending is part of that effort, and David said the DCCC slate came together largely focused on “public safety, affordable housing, and better public education.”
Coordinated, well-heeled effort may flounder in face of name recognition
Money, however, is not everything in the DCCC race, according to political consultants.
The progressive slate has a seeming advantage: It is stacked with incumbent and former politicos, like District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, Public Defender Mano Raju, former District 11 Supervisor John Avalos, former District 6 Supervisor Jane Kim, former District 1 Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer, former District 4 Supervisor Gordon Mar and others who sit or have sat on various city committees and commissions.
The oppositional slate, less so. District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey and District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani are running, alongside former District 2 Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier and others — but not many as familiar as the progressives.
“The moderates, despite the money they spend, haven’t had a lot of big names interested in running for this,” said David Latterman, a retired political consultant on the moderate side. “I just got my first mail piece like yesterday and I’m looking at these people, and I don’t recognize many of them.”
“Look at the progressive side, they have a bunch of elected officials and former elected officials,” said a current San Francisco consultant, who has historically worked with moderate candidates. “The moderates have not typically valued the DCCC in terms of putting people up.”
To voters scanning dozens of names on a ballot, familiarity is paramount — and the progressives have the clear advantage there, consultants said.
David, for his part, acknowledged the importance of name recognition in a race like this, but said the slate could do well when residents’ dissatisfaction is at all-time highs. “Voters in San Francisco right now are frustrated with the status quo.”
Still, the race is deeply down-ticket, an insider’s affair that usually only attracts those paying the closest attention to San Francisco politics. The voters who turn out to off-cycle March elections, historically less than half of the city’s electorate, are the half that cares most about local politics and may have already made up their minds.
“Big names counteract big money,” Latterman said. “Sometimes you just can’t throw money at it.”
Donors are familiar tech backers
The Families PAC is being underwritten by deep-pocketed but familiar names to San Francisco campaign finance: Chris Larsen, the billionaire founder of cryptocurrency exchange Ripple, Emmett Shear, the founder of streaming platform Twitch, Jeffrey and Erica Lawson, recently-departed CEO of cloud communications firm Twilio and his wife. All have donated between $37,500 and $150,000.
Abundant SF’s parent organization, Abundance Network, whose previous name was Effective Government, set up the Families PAC, said David. The nonprofit has so far given more than $50,000 towards the political action committee through “non-monetary” contributions, largely staff time.
Other large donors to the Families PAC include investor John Jersin ($22,500) and his entrepreneur wife Erica Johnson ($20,000), one-time supervisorial candidate and millionaire Nick Josefowitz ($10,000), founder of Code for America and Obama’s deputy chief technology officer Jennifer Pahlka ($10,000) and Y Combinator partner Gustaf Alströmer ($7,500).
The Families PAC is the fourth highest-earning committee in San Francisco as of Feb. 6, according to campaign filings, having received at least $473,739.
moderate /mŏd′ər-ĭt/
adjective
1. Pro-big business, pro-police state, pro-imperialism
The ancient, moderate Congresswoman(D-San Francisco) gaslit a group of people protesting genocide and ethnic cleansing.
noun
1. A registered Democrat beholden to corporate power.
As expected, Gavin Newsom, a moderate, caved to corporate interests once again.
2. One who virtue signals social tolerance while opposing working class interests.
All of the current candidates for mayor in San Francisco are moderates; in other words, they are to the right of Richard Nixon on economic issues.
Please, allow me embellish your deafinition (sic) with reality:
“ The ancient, moderate Congresswoman (D-San Francisco) *called out* a group of *dim witted and hypocritical racist leftists* protesting ‘genocide and ethnic cleansing’.”
Maybe they were moderates in 2018 and 2020, but not while they’re trying to bring back 90s-era war on drugs/”welfare queen” nonsense with Prop F, and give a complete blank check to police to surveil us and endanger us with unnecessary car chases with Prop E. These are not moderate policies, they’re conservative policies. More importantly, just like the 90s version they won’t work, and will only make the problems our city faces more dire.
Do you think things in San Francisco are going better now than they were in the ’90s?
Early 90s crack-era SF? Hell, yes!
I’m voting to keep San Francisco progressive and tell these carpet baggers with thier trunks full of cash to take a walk.
Can Mission Local please make the editorial decision at the highest level to stop referring to conservatives in terms they put forth as misleadingly favorable to them, as “moderates?” Journalists should not allow themselves to be lead by those they cover into taking their framings at face value.
As far as name recognition and framings go, what are we to make of Families for a Vibrant SF that have nothing to do with families or vibrance? Given what we’ve seen of tech over the past several decades, what are we supposed to make of this “abundance” agenda. They use it twice, as if they’re promising that the market will deliver enough crap such that it might as well be free?
Time for Barros to step outside of the crimenogenic Stanford frame for just a moment and critically evaluate the claims of the tech elite.
If you think people like Joel Engardio, Matt Haney, Scott Wiener, and London Breed are “conservatives” then you need to take a trip to the suburbs and beyond.
They are liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrats aren’t left enough for some voters, which is their prerogative, but it doesn’t make them right-wingers. And characterizing them as right-wing conservatives is just going to turn off the liberal Democratic majority that progressives need to peel votes from in order to win citywide in San Francisco.
These conservative Democrats are to the right of Reagan and Nixon economically.
What are you talking about? Prop. E is blatantly rightwing.
See George Lakoff’s sketch of the neuropsychological dynamics of framing: https://www.theframelab.org/p/moral-warfare-101-frames-and-your
This race is not conservatives v. liberals, it’s moderates v. radicals.
two beers’ definitions are funny. Points for that. The labels in SF politics are, indeed, misleading.
That said, “to right of Richard Nixon on economic issues” is not fair. SF “Moderates” by and large, have supported housing development and other economic measures that would benefit working families where SF “Progressives” have stymied the same.
It’s on crime and public safety that some moderates (but only some, and only just recently) are starting to sound “Right” with a capital R.
Elected officials and former elected officials use their star power to get on the DCCC. But then, they quietly designate a proxy to take their spot, often someone unknown but politically aligned, and those proxies become the committee members. It’s a bait-and-switch tactic that allows high-profile politicians to control the endorsement process, by freeing themselves to run for the next office and ensure they get the endorsement.
I think “name recognition” of progressives will definitely work against them this time. Like, I know that name, you’re the one telling us you’d fix all these problems, and things are only getting worse. No way am I voting for this again.
The War on Drugs was a complete war on legalizing any substances of any kind, and destroying peoples’ lives over simple possession. Even marijuana.
What we are witnessing now, is complete anarchy. People are killing themselves slowly and in the streets, threatening their own lives and others. Without any intervention, they will never break the spiral, and many of these folks will never come back. There is no serious path from a policy standpoint to help them.
Every advocate for ending the Drug War advocated that we legalize certain substances and REGULATE THEM. You still need a license to sell booze. You need to be 21+ to purchase them. You can’t just sell liquor on the corner across a middle school. And if you are breaking the law while drunk, there are added consequences. You also can’t mix alcohol in your garage. You need a license.
So the idea that we can’t regulate extreme abuse of the hardest substances because somehow it’s Nancy Reagan all over again? Give me a break.
Are you part off the “less-informed voters [who] will be looking to the Democratic Party’s official seal of approval”.
Don’t vote.
Ultimately, life in this City is a reflection of the voters.
It ain’t pretty and pretty ill-informed.
So, once again, if you feel the need to rely on the DCCC telling you which way to vote.
Don’t vote.