Who's Pouring Millions Into San Francisco's Expensive Mayor's Race?

If money speaks, then San Francisco’s mayoral race sure is a talker.

Campaign contributions have soared past $28 million, making it likely the most expensive race since San Francisco adopted ranked choice voting in 2004. So, who are the biggest donors influencing the election?

Recent campaign finance reports show that this year, tech investors and wealthy real estate developers have emerged as an influential donor class spending millions of dollars in the highly competitive mayoral race and a local proposition that would limit city commissions and expand the powers of the mayor.

“This is certainly a big money race with a lot of special interests involved,” said Sean McMorris, program manager for California Common Cause. “You can just assume those special interests, more often than not, are trying to improve their bottom line in some way that will benefit them.”

Tech money has long influenced Bay Area politics, but the landscape shifted dramatically during the pandemic. New political organizing groups like TogetherSF and GrowSF channeled public frustration over the city’s sluggish economy, street conditions and crime. They’ve since become pivotal players — and fundraisers — hoping to move progressive City Hall seats to the center and center-right, aligning with the moderate takeover of the county’s Democratic Party governing board last spring.

Venture capitalist Michael Moritz, a primary financier of the moderate group TogetherSF, has contributed $3.5 million this election, including $3 million for Proposition D to reduce city commissions and $500,000 to former interim mayor and supervisor Mark Farrell’s PAC supporting the measure. Arthur Patterson, another venture capitalist, recently gave $100,000 to Farrell’s PAC for Proposition D.

The California Association of Realtors also contributed $123,000 to support Proposition D.

Recent filings show that investor Sameer Gandhi gave $100,000 to a PAC supporting Farrell, which has raised $2.5 million in total. Developer Angus McCarthy chipped in $124,500 to the PAC backing Farrell, and investor Kamran Moghtaderi has given $250,500 to the pro-Farrell effort.

San Francisco caps contributions to individual candidates at $500. However, there are no donation limits for independent expenditure committees that support candidates or ballot measures, and according to McMorris, “wealthy interests are bankrolling ballot measures” in this election, too.

“You see candidates all the time try to get sneaky and circumvent those limits. And that in and of itself is a red flag,” he said. “Just because the Supreme Court has given us a broken system doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can to mitigate areas of potential corruption.”

Conservative donors William Oberndorf ($450,000) and Thomas Coates ($500,000) have both backed a PAC supporting Farrell.

Incumbent Mayor London Breed’s campaign has received $600,000 from crypto and tech investor Chris Larsen, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $1.2 million to a PAC supporting Breed.

Meanwhile, mayoral candidate and philanthropist Daniel Lurie, an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, has largely self-funded a PAC supporting his campaign that now totals $9.28 million. Lurie has contributed more than $8 million of his own money into his campaign, most recently adding $2.1 million. Miriam Haas, Lurie’s mother, previously gave $1 million to a PAC supporting his campaign, as well.

“But being a billionaire doesn’t always mean you’re going to win,” McMorris said. “But certainly, his wealth helps because he is able to get out his message and say, ‘Hey, I’m an alternative choice here.”

A PAC supporting Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, who is the only Democrat running on a progressive agenda, has raised just over $1.5 million, largely from small contributions.

But he faces opposition from major tech figures, including billionaire angel investor Ron Conway, who contributed $100,000 to an anti-Peskin committee.

“We expect a massive wave of attacks from billionaire-funded Super PACs during this final stretch as the city realizes the power of our campaign,” Peskin wrote in a campaign email this week. “That’s why Ron Conway is coming at us. But he has tried to defeat us before. He failed, and he will fail again now. And we will win again.”

This isn’t the first clash between Peskin and Conway. In 2015, the investor backed Peskin’s opponent for an open Board of Supervisors seat, which Peskin ultimately won.

Unions are also putting in big bucks to sway the race. Recent campaign finance reports show Service Employees International Union Local 1021 dropped $476,000 into an anti-Farrell committee. The National Union of Healthcare Workers has contributed $175,000 to a pro-Peskin PAC.

The candidates are spending their funds on TV ad buys, text message blasts and heaps of mailers. Lurie, in particular, has put a significant amount into attack ads against Farrell, who has faced allegations of skirting campaign finance laws by using funding intended for Proposition D to boost his mayoral campaign.

Despite candidates’ funding gaps, political consultant Eric Jaye, founder of Storefront Political Media, said it’s still anybody’s race to win.

Three polls released Monday paint a tight race among the leading candidates. A Public Policy Polling survey commissioned by Peskin’s campaign shows him tied with Lurie at 25% of first-choice votes. The San Francisco Chronicle’s poll put Lurie and Breed neck-and-neck at 27% of first-choice picks, with Peskin at 21%. The third poll from TogetherSF Action and LDI Research shows Breed leading with 25% of first-place votes, followed by Lurie and Farrell tied at 21%.

“You want to look at trend lines, which tend to predict what might happen. The only candidate with momentum right now is Aaron Peskin and the candidate who is fading … is Mark Farrell,” Jaye said. “Daniel Lurie, by virtue of his very aggressive personal spending, has created a base for himself. But in San Francisco campaigns, push generally comes to shove.”