When Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan posts about San Francisco, it is generally centered on a theme.
“In November 2024, we will vote out the hard left,” he wrote last summer. “We will control the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,” he said in August. At the end of January, he implored: “Vote out [the progressive half of the board] and we will fix SF.”
Tan, one of several mega-donors supporting a network of public pressure groups in the city, almost exclusively writes about the 2024 elections as a bellwether, a promise to remake San Francisco and a precious opening for long-term structural change.
He’s right.
For a new crop of San Francisco advocacy groups heavily funded by tech and old real-estate money, the 2024 elections offer a rare opportunity: The chance to sweep the last vestiges of progressive power from the city, and cement their hold for years to come.
“They already control the mayor’s office, and in the mayor’s office rests, essentially, the lion’s share of political power in the city,” said Eric Jaye, a longtime Democratic political consultant in San Francisco who has worked for both progressive and moderate candidates and causes. “They already have most of the power. This is about them having all the power.”
A Mission Local analysis of campaign finance filings, tax statements, news reporting and other sources has mapped out a vast network of related public pressure groups, wealthy donors, staff members, candidates and campaigns.
The gaggle of more than a dozen groups — tied together in a web of political action committees, nonprofits and social welfare organizations that nimbly work together — include Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, Together SF and GrowSF.
Explore MIssion Local’s Analysis of big money groups
They share public policy objectives largely aimed at unseating progressives and combating their policies. Their objectives range from pro-housing and pro-transit advocacy, to increased punishment for “quality of life” crimes, like drug use, homelessness, theft and more. They have, collectively, spent upwards of at least $10 million on advocacy since 2022.
Their donors — often billionaires and millionaires from tech, like Ripple executive chairman Chris Larsen, venture capitalists Ron Conway and Jeremy Liew, Twitch founder Emmett Shear and others — have spent many millions more on campaigns directly.
“This is a true only-in-San Francisco thing,” said Jim Ross, a 30-year political consultant who ran now-Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2003 mayoral run, and today works mostly with progressives. “The Bay Area has one of the top concentrations of the ultra-wealthy in the world.”
Already, they have financed significant wins: The 2022 school board recalls gave the groups momentum, and the recall of then-District Attorney Chesa Boudin just a few months later confirmed their sense that the tide was turning.
Then there was redistricting, which that same year propelled the election of District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio. His victory, alongside that of District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey, gave moderates five seats on the board — another win.
2024 is the litmus test
But this year’s bid to retake the Democratic Central County Committee, elect tough-on-crime judges and flip the Board of Supervisors would signal a new phase in these groups’ accrual of power, half a dozen political observers said.
“The metric of success will be: Can they flip the DCCC? Can they get Bilal [Mahmood] to beat [Dean] Preston? Will they get the judges in?” said David Latterman, a retired moderate political consultant, referring to an attempt to unseat the city’s lone socialist supervisor. “Are they going to be more effective in a general sense?”
A sweep of progressives from the DCCC or Board of Supervisors, said another longtime consultant, could create “defined leadership for the next decade” on the moderate side. “There’s a lot at stake.”
“The 2024 election cycle has a potential to be a sea-change election year,” echoed Todd David, who was a leader of the school board recalls and is a key player in the new ecosystem.
David, who cut his teeth working as the leader of Scott Wiener’s victorious bid for State Senate in 2016 and was formerly the executive director of the Housing Action Coalition, is now the head of Abundant SF, which has pledged millions to support friendly candidates in the coming years.
Some political observers disputed the characterization that the groups have had much success at all, seeing the recalls, for instance, as limited electoral victories — and the groups’ involvement as superficial.
The coming year, said one San Francisco consultant close to the DA recall, “is a major test for them, because they actually haven’t had any success yet, in the sense that they’ve jumped onto movements that were already taking place.”
“If you think about it, other than recalling the DA, they’ve not had a lot of success so far,” added Ross, who led the anti-recall campaign for Boudin. He pointed to “electing Joel Engardio and recalling Chesa Boudin” as wins, but said that, dollar for dollar, they were still punching below their weight.
“For the amount of money they have, they’re not all that successful,” he said. “They’ve won two out of how many races?”
Still, all acknowledged that the coming year would be significant, a chance for this new crop to prove itself in tough, down-ballot races. A sweep of the Board of Supervisors, the judiciary or the local Democratic Party chapter would not only consolidate power, but prove organizing prowess.
“These are district races, down-ticket races. This is the hard stuff, the stuff moderates have not been good at for a while,” said Latterman. “The top of the ticket is easy.”
The new vision of San Francisco
The groups underscore a slate of issues that seemingly anyone across San Francisco’s political spectrum would agree on: A need for safe and clean streets, housing and better schools.
Indeed, David from Abundant SF characterized the groups’ constituents as San Franciscans who are civically minded, but not generally active locally. But, he said, “because of the displeasure of the state of the city, they have moved their focus to San Francisco.”
“The different organizations that are viewed as part of the coalition, they speak to different demographics of that type of voter,” he said. David is, he said, “personally pleased that the organizations seem to be aligned on who they’re supporting.”
But how these new groups seek to make the city better can best be seen in the candidates and ballot measures they support.
This year, for instance, GrowSF is seeking to unseat progressives Dean Preston in District 5 and Connie Chan in District 1, financing “Dump Dean” and “Clear Out Connie” PACs that have fundraised more than $301,000 and $72,000, respectively, as of Feb. 12.
Read More on the Ideology underpinning new pressure groups
Neighbors for a Better San Francisco and TogetherSF Action are backing Proposition E, a measure that would undercut police oversight, require less reporting on police uses of force, allow more surveillance cameras and rewrite policy to allow for more police chases.
The department is already struggling with reform: In 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice asked San Francisco to enact 272 major changes to the department, which SFPD has moved slowly to adopt.
Chris Larsen, the Ripple executive chairman and a billionaire who has donated to various groups and causes in the network, including $250,000 to Prop. E, said that the measure would protect privacy while also safeguarding criminal justice reform.
Larsen said that if laws like Prop. E are not passed, voters could grow angry at perceived inaction on crime, voting for even tougher measures down the line. It was, he said, an attempt to be “smart” and unfetter the police without going overboard.
But, he also said, after George Floyd’s murder, there was “overcorrecting against the police,” and Prop. E could be step in the other direction.
“It’s all about balance,” he said, “and you got to nudge it a little bit over here now.”
Larsen and others are also putting money behind Proposition F, which would require drug screening for certain welfare recipients and compel treatment before drug-addicted people on welfare can receive cash assistance. Health experts say that, if the goal is to address addiction, this is unlikely to work.
And, for good measure, if the attempts to take the Board of Supervisors don’t work, there is a fall-back position. TogetherSF Action published a report last summer echoing the thesis of a New York Times op-ed written earlier by its chief donor, Michael Mortiz, who has also financed the news site The San Francisco Standard: San Francisco’s mayor is too weak, and needs more power.
It was another salvo in an ongoing attempt to further consolidate executive strength: TogetherSF Action will in November put up two ballot measures that would reduce the Board of Supervisors’ power over department heads and commissions, and limit the number of oversight bodies.
A committee backing the prospective measures has already raised more than $1.6 million, with almost $1 million from Moritz alone. TogetherSF’s last attempt to put forward the measure imploded in a manner of weeks; it was poorly written and would have transferred more power to the Board of Supervisors, not less.
San Francisco’s mayor, however, already has the ultimate say over the city’s departments and its budget; she controlled 57 times as much money as the Board of Supervisors in the last budget. Since no San Francisco progressive has held the mayoralty since Art Agnos in 1987, the two ballot measures are a de facto consolidation of power to the city’s political moderates.
Coalition has ascended quickly—and may be here to stay
These groups have, in a short period of time, catapulted to the top of San Francisco campaign finance: Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, for instance, was the largest funder of the Boudin recall, and is the single most well-financed political action committee in the city, with more than $3.3 million in the past two years. PACs can fundraise unlimited amounts to spend directly on campaigns, but cannot coordinate with candidates directly.
The Neighbors PAC eclipses any group on the progressive side. The San Francisco Labor Council, a coalition of labor unions, has raised only $872,000 in the same period.
The third and fourth largest PACs? Other allies of Neighbors and the new big money groups: The Committee to Fix San Francisco, which works with the social welfare arms of TogetherSF and Neighbors for a Better San Francisco. Its PAC has raised more than $600,000 that can be used to back candidates directly, printing mailers and paying door-knockers to boost campaigns.
Families for a Vibrant San Francisco, a PAC headed by David of Abundant SF, is the fourth largest in the city and has raised some $474,000. It is putting all of that money behind bankrolling the slate for DCCC that is trying to oust the progressives on the body.
Its largest donors — like billionaires Moritz, William Oberndorf or Chris Larsen — have extremely deep pockets and can finance these groups for years; Moritz, for his part, has already sunk more than $300 million into San Francisco causes, including these groups, since 2020.
“These deep pockets have committed to multi-year contributions,” said Jim Sutton, a 30-year campaign finance lawyer. “I do think the city is fed up, that’s true, but I think what makes it different now is some wealthy people are fed up enough.”
“When we think about policy, we’re thinking about the next 20 years in San Francisco,” added David of Abundant SF. “Our plan is to be around for a long time, not just be an election cycle and then disappear.”
Additional reporting by Eleni Balakrishnan.
Every renter in town should recognize this billionaires’ gambit to destroy rent control and district elections.
These first three articles in the BigMoneySF series (plus The Guardian article) are an impressive good start, but still leave us wanting a tighter focus on the role of Mortiz’s propaganda rag–The San Francisco Standard–in this right-wing conspiracy to control SF, along with his CEO Griffen Gaffney, editorial staff and reporters. I mean, the interactive graphic is awesome, and it has its little orange-circled “S” in the corner linking to Moritz and Gaffney, who both link to TogetherSF, and there is the media tab up there which sorta highlights those connections, but this series (and your readers) deserve a close examination, and instance, of the dangers and damage of non-independent billionaire manipulative megaphone shops in this pandemic era of the decline and death of local news across the nation. I mean, show us some examples of their unethical practices so readers can understand why to be cautious of their content and how these practices are unethical according to even bottom-floor journalistic practices. Even in the Guardian article, after mentioning Moritz and his connections to TogetherSF &c., they merely mention that, “Moritz has also sunk $10m into the San Francisco Standard, a startup news publication in the city run by Griffin Gaffney, a co-founder of TogetherSF.” You guys don’t mention much more. Anyway, while I dream about that hypothetical forthcoming article in the series, I’ll just provide one example myself, so readers might adopt a more critical stance toward the outfit. When the Standard first “reported” the gathering at Tan’s house in the Mission in their article “Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan Is Organizing San Francisco’s Moderate Political Agenda,” where they provide free press and political advertising for the various alphabet-soup-groups-SF in attendance, including TogetherSF and the Standard CEO Gaffney and friends, all funded or employed by Moritz as well, nowhere in the article do they disclose ANY of these associations. When editor in chief Julie Makinen was questioned about this, in a correspondence shared with Mission Local editors, she untruthfully replied: “The San Francisco Standard and Together SF split long ago. We are not affiliated with Together SF/Together SF Action, and no one on our team holds positions with them. There is no intent here to advocate for particular political perspectives or outcomes. We report on a lot of political developments in San Francisco, without fear or favor.” Meanwhile, the SF Standard Standards & Ethics Policy section titled Reporting Practices, states: “We will always be as transparent as possible about the sources of our information… and we do not mislead readers about the identities of people who appear in our stories. By the same token, we do not mislead people about our own identity or endeavors.” In the Conflicts of Interest section, they begin with the claim that, “Our journalists are subject to rigorous conflict-of-interest rules.” The section ends with: “As part of our commitment to journalistic independence, we do not take leadership roles in political causes or other forms of social activism. We do not run for office, or take an active role in any political campaigns.” Uh huh. So, maybe flesh this activity out and hold this unethical organization to account, for all of us!
I remember when London Breed first got elected and ostentatiously marched up and down Market St., waving her arms around and telling us how she was going come in and fix all the problems supposedly caused by progressives. It didn’t quite turn out the way she predicted.
As far as Garry Tan goes, people who openly brag about being jerks are seldom as effective as they think they are. And those who see the world solely through the beer goggles of social media seldom understand the real world.
I’m sorry, but progressives have had control of this city for years and as a multi-decade resident and LIFELONG Democrat myself, I can honestly say the city is in a steep decline thanks to the obstreperousness of our largely progressive Board of Supervisors and the ridiculous positions taken by our almost entirely progressive DCCC (not to mention our School Board, whose malpractice during the pandemic spurred a recall election that our current progressive controlled SF Dems refused to support). You don’t have to be a billionaire to look around and think things need to be fixed. You just need to have eyes and a pulse.
If you agree, I encourage you to vote these candidates for the DCCC. https://www.sfdemocratsforchange.org/#candidates
What progressives? London Breed, not a Progressive. The Board of Supes, two progressives at best. The Moderates were and have been in charge of this City.
Brooke Jenkins and London Breed are so-called moderates, but as you have pointed out, so far neither one of them has produced any tangible results. It’s easy to bash the city and blame people you disagree with, but no evidence supports your proposed solution.
that is simply untrue.
A few hundred thousand on campaigns is one thing. $1.7 billion per year on largely unaudited nonprofits – now that’s the real BigMoneySF.
we’ll see just how unpopular their “movement” is this year. mayor breed can’t hide behind an off-year mayoral election anymore, and this won’t be chesa running against a ghost or a school board recall with less than 50% voter turnout. 2020 saw election participation above 80% – this year will give these politicians and their wealthy hack benefactors a reality check.
I hope the moderates can pull this off. We need a miracle at this point to save san francisco for the progressives morass
Note that Garry Tan has not been fired from GrowSF nor Y Combinator, so we have to assume that those organizations support hate speech that inspires violence.
If only we had a citizen’s militia to arrest these enemies of democracy.
Haha. If there were citizens militias in this town they would be bankrolled by the Billionaire Boyz, and you would be Gary they locked up not Garry Tan. Actually there were citizens militias in SF after the 06 earthquake to defend citizens from the terror of immigrants, indians and other enemies of “democracy.” You would think with all the money, education and cocaine at their disposal they would come up with campaign built on something more than ordinary political fraud. Really Boyz, this is what you get from all those “creatives” you pay?