{"id":36252,"date":"2024-09-18T12:25:06","date_gmt":"2024-09-18T19:25:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=36252"},"modified":"2024-09-18T12:25:07","modified_gmt":"2024-09-18T19:25:07","slug":"bigmoneysf-how-one-group-quickly-became-the-800-pound-gorilla-of-s-f-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2024\/09\/18\/bigmoneysf-how-one-group-quickly-became-the-800-pound-gorilla-of-s-f-politics\/","title":{"rendered":"BigMoneySF: How one group quickly became the 800-pound gorilla of S.F. politics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\"Man by\u00a0JOE RIVANO BARROS<\/a><\/strong> APRIL 24, 2024 (MissionLocal.org)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Illustration
“Welcome to the Neighbors’ hood!” The public pressure group Neighbors for a Better San Francisco has in short order become the dominant player in San Francisco campaign finance. Illustration by Neil Ballard.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"Mission<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Sign up below to get Mission Local\u2019s free newsletter<\/strong>, a daily digest of news you won\u2019t find elsewhere.Sign up<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of the bevy of billionaire-backed pressure groups<\/a> that have mushroomed in San Francisco, excoriating progressives for urban ills from drug-infested streets to sclerotic housing production, one stands head and shoulders above the rest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, the group launched in 2020 and backed largely by real estate and technology money, has in short order become the most well-funded, top-spending organization active in San Francisco politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It supplied the majority of the spending to recall then-District Attorney Chesa Boudin in 2022, and was the No. 1 spender in the school-board recalls that same year. Neighbors alone accounted for more than one of every $10 spent in San Francisco political campaigns between 2020 and 2024 \u2014 at least $8.7 million of $80.3 million total, according to an analysis of campaign finance data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The group, a \u201csocial welfare\u201d nonprofit founded by two Realtor lobbyists and backed by Republican mega-donors, almost exclusively spends on law-and-order causes, backing tough-on-crime policies and candidates far more than housing, transit or other policy issues. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the group was initially focused on supervisorial races, it quickly expanded and successfully funneled millions to recall the district attorney, reverse criminal justice reforms, fight alternatives to incarceration and bolster the police department.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey\u2019re the big political player on the center-right in San Francisco politics,\u201d said Jim Ross, a political consultant who knows Neighbors\u2019 muscle well: He was the anti-recall campaign consultant for Boudin, and saw the effects of the group\u2019s spending first-hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/missionlocal.github.io\/interactives\/2024-neighbors-finance\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission<\/a>, California secretary of state\u2019s office<\/a>, the Internal Revenue Service<\/a>, and other sources. Chart by Will Jarrett and updated by Kelly Waldron.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor moderates or conservatives, there\u2019s no group that has the consistent political reach of Neighbors,\u201d Ross continued. \u201cAnd, after the recall, you have to say: Effective reach.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eric Jaye, another longtime consultant, saw it more pointedly: \u201cYou have a group of the wealthiest people on the planet saying that they want to take control of our city,\u201d he said. \u201cDo these handful of billionaires and tech folks own it, or do we? It\u2019s not more complicated than that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of Neighbors\u2019 leaders responded to multiple requests for comment for this piece.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Led by Realtors and Republican donors<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors for a Better San Francisco was started in 2020<\/a> by two lobbyists with the San Francisco Association of Realtors: Mary Jung, the group\u2019s director of government relations, and Jay Cheng, its deputy director of government relations and a Jung protege. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Its leadership is a medley of wealthy political donors. William Oberndorf, the billionaire hedge-fund manager and Republican mega-donor, is the group\u2019s biggest patron, a co-director, and the president of its associated nonprofit charity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oberndorf has donated at least $13 million to Republicans for decades, going back to George H. W. Bush, according to Federal Election Commission records<\/a>. He has given about $250,000 to Democrats in that same timeframe. He is a major proponent of charter schools, and has sought to limit the power of teachers\u2019 unions. He has given Neighbors at least $1 million. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Louise Muhlfeld Patterson is also a co-director of the group. Going back to 2007, she has spent tens of thousands to back federal candidates, though she has given largely to Democrats; she has donated at least $830,346 to Neighbors. Her husband, Arthur Patterson, is a longtime venture capitalist and the director of Neighbors\u2019 associated charity. He has spent at least $250,000 on federal elections, largely benefitting Republicans. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Steven Merrill, another venture capitalist and also a director of the group, has spent heavily on politics, funding both Republicans and Democrats. He has given Neighbors at least $535,001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there is Nick Podell, the president of Neighbors and a developer behind one of the Mission District\u2019s largest \u2014 and most controversial \u2014 housing projects, the 196-unit project at 2000 Bryant St. The project was opposed<\/a> by neighborhood activists, but in 2016 Podell managed to work out a deal<\/a> by donating a sizable portion of his land to the city for it to develop affordable housing, equivalent to some 41 percent of the total housing units, which was a record at the time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Podell is not a significant donor to Neighbors \u2014 he has given at least $10,000 \u2014 but is, at least nominally, a top leader. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors has dozens of other donors, most of them hailing from tech, real estate and banking. Jaye, for his part, sees the group simply: An alliance of the nouveau riche from Silicon Valley with traditional downtown real estate interests, spending far, far more money than before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey used to organize $2-3 million,\u201d said Jaye of past campaign donors. \u201cNow it\u2019s going to be $20 or $30 million. It\u2019s an order of magnitude difference.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors has become SF\u2019s biggest political spender<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Since 2020, Neighbors has spent at least $14.5 million on political campaigns across California, with the bulk of it (at least $8.7 million) directed to San Francisco races, according to state and local campaign finance filings. The group\u2019s associated nonprofit charity, which cannot support candidates directly, spent another $2.7 million in 2021 and 2022, according to federal tax documents; spending for 2023 has not yet been released.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Besides the vaping company Juul, which between 2019 and 2021 paid out gobs of cash to defeat the city\u2019s e-cigarette ban<\/a> but was trounced in its attempt, Neighbors has been the largest single spender in San Francisco politics since it arrived on the scene in 2020, according to an analysis of city campaign finance data. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors has received more money than any other political action committee active in San Francisco politics since Aug. 1, 2022, according to the San Francisco Ethics Commission<\/a>, which lists local PACs in order of the contributions they have received. Neighbors\u2019 total contributions over the past two years \u2014 at least $4.1 million \u2014 are four times that of the next largest PAC, another tech-backed effort<\/a> by the moderate-leaning group AbundantSF<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ross described Neighbors as a \u201cdonor-advised fund for politics\u201d \u2014 that is, unlike other advocacy groups that have emerged in the city in recent years, Neighbors is largely a conduit for the wealthy to direct their funds. It is not a membership organization, and does not host happy hours<\/a>, trash pick-ups<\/a>, or leadership trainings<\/a> to attract or develop new supporters \u2014 though it does fund groups that do so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is, instead, focused on soliciting money from well-heeled donors and spending it on a vast scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To do so, Neighbors, like many advocacy groups, exists as two associated nonprofits: Its 501(c)(4) \u201csocial welfare\u201d organization<\/a> can take in unlimited funds, and spend those directly on political campaigns, so long as that is not its \u201cprimary\u201d activity \u2014 generally meaning less than 50 percent of the group\u2019s expenditures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors does the bulk of its giving through this social welfare nonprofit, which, per California law, is treated as a PAC and discloses its political contributions in state and local campaign filings; the group also has an associated 501(c)(3) \u201cpublic charity\u201d nonprofit<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every Neighbors\u2019 contribution since 2020<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\nhttps:\/\/missionlocal.github.io\/interactives\/2024-neighbors-contributions\/\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission<\/a> and California secretary of state\u2019s office<\/a>. Chart by Kelly Waldron.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group\u2019s biggest spends have been pro-police<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors is not the biggest political spender in San Francisco history. Vast sums have been poured into the city\u2019s races by groups like the American Beverage Association ($31.8 million to unsuccessfully fight the city\u2019s soda tax) or Juul ($22.6 million against the e-cigarette ban).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But such exorbitantly expensive campaigns have tended to be one-off corporate efforts, funded heavily to fight a business threat during an election season or two. Neighbors, by contrast, stands out not only for its heft, but its potential for longevity: With a well-connected political staff, it can solicit and spend money for years to come, backing a panoply of policies that suit donors\u2019 ideological goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the last four years, Neighbors has given money to voter guides, local Democratic Party clubs, and other nonprofits, sometimes pushing liberal policies like transit bonds, permit streamlining, and affirmative action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Its biggest expenditure by far, however, has been on law enforcement and public safety: Neighbors contributed the majority of the money to the expensive 2022 recall of Boudin<\/a>, giving at least $4.7 million \u2014 the group\u2019s largest spend. The Boudin recall reversed a nascent effort at criminal-justice reform in San Francisco, ushering in new district attorney Brooke Jenkins \u2014 who has dismissed<\/a> all her predecessor\u2019s charges against cops, decreased<\/a> the rate of diversions, and induced the exodus<\/a> of dozens of staffers from her office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors for a Better SF spent more on law and order issues than anything else<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Reported contributions from 2020 to 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors\u2019 sister charity paid Jenkins<\/a> a six-figure sum for \u201cconsulting\u201d while she served as a volunteer spokesperson for the recall, a possible violation of campaign finance rules. Both the IRS and California attorney general\u2019s office were asked to investigate, but the status of those investigations is unclear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors also heavily financed the 2022 school board recall<\/a>, becoming the campaign\u2019s chief financier, and has spent more than $500,000 bankrolling a group reportedly<\/a> influential in the 2022 redistricting efforts, which benefitted moderate candidates<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the March 5 election, Neighbors spent at least $966,000<\/a> in San Francisco, largely to defeat Proposition B,<\/a> the police measure opposed by Mayor London Breed for tying staffing increases to future revenue; the mayor wanted increased staffing from general funds. The proposition lost 72 to 28 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The group is not slowing down: For the November 2024 election, Neighbors has already contributed $400,000 to an effort to expand mayoral power. Two ballot measures, backed by Neighbors but proposed by the allied group TogetherSF, aim to limit the number of city commissions and give the mayor more firing and hiring power, among other changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be the biggest change to mayoral authority since the early 2000s, when voters passed a series of propositions giving the Board of Supervisors a minority of appointments on some city commissions. The shifts were a reaction to Mayor Willie Brown\u2019s two terms in office, during which he was able to flood City Hall with allies and apparatchiks<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The TogetherSF measures for this November, which have not yet qualified for the ballot, have already seen more than $2.1 million<\/a> in funding. About half of that sum comes from a single source: Michael Moritz, the billionaire journalist-turned-investor who has poured at least $2.3 million into the city\u2019s political campaigns since 2003, and is the top patron of both TogetherSF and the San Francisco Standard<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHe\u2019s clearly looking at: How do I get at the root challenges of governing San Francisco?\u201d said Ross of Moritz\u2019s focus. \u201cI don\u2019t know if his policies are going to have that achievement \u2026 but he\u2019s clearly going after long-term structural change.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s all in the family<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The interests of Moritz, TogetherSF, the entity he funds, and Neighbors often coincide. After all, the founder and head of TogetherSF<\/a>, Kanishka Cheng, is married to Jay Cheng, the head of Neighbors. She is a former aide to both Breed and District 2 supervisor Mark Farrell, a leading challenger for mayor<\/a>, and both TogetherSF and Neighbors are expected to back Farrell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI don\u2019t perceive that there\u2019s a lot of light between Kanishka and Jay Cheng,\u201d said Jaye. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhatever organizational influence and heft they have, they are going to be supporting efforts that blatantly support Mark Farrell, or indirectly support Mark Farrell,\u201d predicted one longtime political consultant. \u201cThey are not going to be lifting a finger for London Breed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still others said donors may sidestep the issue and fund an \u201canyone but Peskin\u201d effort, referring to Board President Aaron Peskin<\/a>, who threw his hat in the ring earlier this month.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAaron Peskin is a huge lightning rod,\u201d said another political consultant, who also wished to remain anonymous. Neighbors\u2019 donors, he said, are \u201creally fractured\u201d over who to support, but \u201cPeskin may be the unifying force.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAt the end of it all, they really don\u2019t want Peskin,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, added Ross, Neighbors may yet return to its roots, spending heavily in an attempt to keep progressives from controlling the Board of Supervisors in a year with six district races, including two with incumbent progressives, Connie Chan and Dean Preston. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey\u2019re going to play big in the mayor\u2019s race, but they may take a bigger role in the supervisors\u2019 races,\u201d Ross said. Neighbors and other big money groups, Ross said, will devote \u201ca lot of spending\u201d to ensure that both branches of the city\u2019s government \u2014 the mayor\u2019s office and the board \u2014 stay out of progressive hands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, for both efforts, Neighbors is flush with cash: The group had, as of the end of February, a $1.9 million war chest heading into November \u2014 an amount that is certain to snowball ahead of the election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors started by fighting progressive supes<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the first weeks of its existence, between early September 2020 and the Nov. 3 election that year, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco flooded local elections with almost $3 million in spending. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The group filed to become a political action committee on Sept. 14, 2020, and in a month amassed more than $3 million from nearly 60 donors. Some of the biggest: Ripple CEO Chris Larsen ($300,000), real estate investor David DeWilde ($100,000), hotel billionaire John Pritzker ($300,000), tech investor Christopher James ($200,000), and Moritz ($300,000), among many others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors did not spend exclusively in San Francisco: Regionally, it funded progressive campaigns, like an effort to boost Caltrain\u2019s funding by $100 million a year ($196,000), and sometimes did the same at the state level, seeking to restore affirmative action in California ($446,000). But it also fought a reform of Proposition 13 that would have increased taxes on land-holding businesses ($100,000).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While these donations are, at first blush, counterintuitive, one potential explanation is that the real \u201cget\u201d for Neighbors is that the donation to a state ballot proposition funded a local slate card. As such, an agreeable<\/a> local slate card was produced, but the donation on San Francisco ethics forms recorded a give to a state measure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regardless, Neighbors\u2019 biggest expenses were local, partly attempting to stop a real estate tax ($239,500) and fund a homelessness bond ($104,050), but largely centered on fighting progressive supervisorial candidates. It led a million-dollar campaign in four contested district races where progressives looked to make gains, further entrenching their hold on the Board of Supervisors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To do so, Neighbors funded a political action committee called the SF Workforce Housing Alliance to the tune of $843,000. The PAC was led by Todd David, the former campaign manager to Sen. Scott Wiener. David is a longtime YIMBY, and is now the head of AbundantSF, which has promised to spend millions<\/a> in local races in the coming years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Neighbors PAC was aggressive, taking out ads lambasting progressive candidates as \u201cradical\u201d<\/a> and \u201cextreme,\u201d seeking to blame them for homelessness, high housing costs, and crime. In mailers, it derided Connie Chan, running in District 1, as \u201cEncampment Connie,\u201d<\/a> and implied that she would preside over business closures and car break-ins. It called Vilaska Nguyen, who ran in District 7, a \u201cLyin\u2019 King\u201d<\/a> and photoshopped his face atop the Disney cartoon lion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
A collage of campaign ads paid by the Neighbors-funded PAC in the 2020 supervisor races. Illustration by Junyao Yang.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

John Avalos, the former District 11 supervisor who was fined for campaign finance violations stemming from his 2011 mayoral bid, was dubbed an \u201cethics abuser\u201d and \u201cJohn A-Violator.\u201d<\/a> On ads, the PAC mocked up a mugshot of his face<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one ad against Dean Preston<\/a>, whom the PAC spent at least $235,000 to defeat \u2014 the most on any candidate race \u2014 the PAC implied Bernie Sanders had called the candidate\u2019s housing plan \u201ca racist legacy\u201d of Jim Crow. Sanders had not commented on Preston\u2019s policies in particular and, in fact, endorsed the candidate, a fellow democratic socialist. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The PAC also showed before-and-after photos implying Preston seeded the district<\/a> with homeless encampments after handing out tents to the unhoused. The \u201cbefore\u201d photos showed the Painted Ladies on a sunny day and behind a clean street; the \u201cafter\u201d ones, a trash-strewn sidewalk encampment \u2014 but in a completely different part of the city. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, despite the spending, Neighbors\u2019 preferred candidates lost three of their four races.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preston and Chan won in their districts, beating Neighbors-backed Vallie Brown and Marjan Philhour. Nguyen lost, but so, too, did the group\u2019s preferred candidate in District 7, Joel Engardio; Myrna Melgar took home the seat. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Avalos did not gain a third term in District 11 \u2014 Ahsha Safa\u00ed won there. But the Neighbors PAC did not support Safa\u00ed with significant funds, and this turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory, as Safa\u00ed has since tacked to the left<\/a> in a mayoral bid of his own. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat was not a particularly successful election cycle,\u201d admits David, who ran the independent expenditure campaign. There was, he said, \u201ca lot of learning by losing,\u201d but since then, Neighbors has \u201cgotten much more sophisticated in a very short period of time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, David added, the group can afford to do so, given deep-pocketed benefactors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey\u2019re an organization that has the resources to be able to do that,\u201d he said. \u201cOne failed election cycle does not dry up their funding. They can learn on the job.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group\u2019s reputation was built on recalls<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

At the end of 2020, after an unsuccessful attempt to remake the Board of Supervisors, Neighbors had $356,000 cash on hand \u2014 money that needed a purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey had a bunch of money left over, and that money was just sitting there waiting for someone to do something with it,\u201d said a political consultant who has kept a close eye on the group. \u201cAnd Mary Jung was in control of it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boudin was sworn in on Jan. 8, 2020. Within a year, on Jan. 1, 2021, a Republican-led recall petition<\/a> had started that quickly gained thousands of signatures and national notoriety. Jung jumped on board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On March 11, 2021, articles of incorporation were submitted for both a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) under the names \u201cNeighbors for a Better San Francisco\u201d<\/a> and \u201cNeighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy.\u201d<\/a> A month later, on April 19, Jung and others started a second, separate recall petition<\/a> \u2014 and began collecting checks for its passage via the newly formed entities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors did not accept any donations in the first half of 2021, campaign finance filings show, until a flurry of activity in June aimed at a single target: Boudin. In June, it took in $720,000 from nine big-money donors \u2014 like San Francisco heiresses Diane \u201cDede\u201d Wilsey and Miriam \u201cMimi\u201d Hass, Daniel Lurie\u2019s mother \u2014 and spent that money almost as quickly, funneling $530,000 that same month to PACs supporting the recall. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the recall proceeded over the next 12 months, it continued amassing and spending funds at a rapid clip. Boudin faced an uphill battle: When he was elected in a low-turnout race, he got just 36 percent of first-round votes<\/a>, but won after his opponents failed to coordinate a ranked-choice strategy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same was not true of the recall. Neighbors\u2019 avalanche of money \u2014 they outspent recall opponents 2-to-1 \u2014 ushered in Boudin\u2019s defeat; he lost 55-45 in an up-or-down vote. The more than $4.7 million spent to oust the DA was, by far, the group\u2019s largest and most consequential expenditure. In undoing the victory of San Francisco\u2019s most left-leaning district attorney, it cemented its credibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The school board recalls that year were also a notch in Neighbors\u2019 belt \u2014 although those closely involved in the recall say the group\u2019s funding, while welcome, was not a driving force in the campaign. Rather, Neighbors and other wealthy donors hitched their wagon to a rocketship, and garnered acclaim afterwards: The entirety of Neighbors\u2019 $488,800 in spending on the school board recalls came in just the five weeks before the election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recall proponents outspent opponents by a ratio of 24 to 1<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey all kind of jumped on the bandwagon once things were already in motion,\u201d said a political consultant close to the school board recalls. \u201cDid they get in and help? Absolutely, but they haven\u2019t created their own opportunities for success yet.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, Neighbors is seeking to change both branches of city government<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This year\u2019s election will test Neighbors\u2019 ability to defeat progressive candidates and consolidate power. Neighbors\u2019 giving, so far in 2024, has been centered on public safety once again, opposing Proposition B on the March 5 ballot and supporting Proposition E, which allows for looser rules around police chases, surveillance, and looser oversight of police use of force \u2014 in line with Breed\u2019s wishes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, though the March 5 election brought Neighbors and Breed together, all bets are off in November.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPeople are playing a bit of a waiting game,\u201d said Ross of wealthy donors\u2019 intentions between Breed, Farrell and Lurie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighbors has already committed $400,000 to ballot measures bolstering mayoral power, meaning any mayoral victor \u2014 even Peskin, the group\u2019s b\u00eate noire \u2014 stands to gain from the group\u2019s spending. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An allied group, GrowSF, has already formed PACs opposing Chan and Preston in Districts 1 and 5, but District 3, 9, and 11 are also contested races, and could see Neighbors\u2019 thumb on the scale. If progressives lose any two of those five races, control of the board will flip.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prospect, for the political consultant Jaye, goes beyond the city\u2019s borders: Reversing criminal justice reform, enacting a more punitive approach to homelessness, returning to a \u201cwar on drugs\u201d mentality and jailing drug users \u2014 the policies backed by Neighbors, Jaye said, would go a long way towards remaking the reputation of San Francisco nationally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey\u2019re showing us, telling us, revealing to us what they\u2019re trying to do \u2026 You take out San Francisco as the leading liberal city in America, you\u2019ve decapitated your opponent,\u201d he said. \u201cI think this has a lot to do with San Francisco. I don\u2019t think this only has to do with San Francisco.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methodology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Amounts in this story and accompanying graphic come from local, state, and federal campaign finance filings, as well as federal tax forms like 990s and nonprofit forms filed to the California state government. Amounts should reflect disclosed totals but will not include amounts that have not yet been disclosed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Neighbors funnel graph includes major donors, advocacy groups, and political causes going back to 2020. Nodes are sized depending on amounts given or received. In the Neighbors bar graph, categories like \u201claw and order\u201d or \u201cgovernance\u201d were chosen and tagged to spending by Mission Local<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you see any errors or missing information, please let us know at joe.rivanobarros@missionlocal.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MORE ON BIG MONEY IN SAN FRANCISCO<\/mark><\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"TogetherSF<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

TogetherSF wants to remake City Hall. Internal doc shows that\u2019s just the beginning.<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"BigMoneySF:<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

BigMoneySF: How public-pressure groups use (and abuse?) U.S. tax law<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"Dissecting<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Dissecting Mission Local\u2019s reporting on big money donors<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Do you appreciate our election coverage?

<\/strong>Mission Local is bringing you election stories from across San Francisco. We’re asking every supervisorial candidate a weekly question in our “Meet the Candidates” series<\/mark><\/a><\/strong>. We’re publishing daily dispatches from the campaign trail following the mayoral candidates in our “See How They Run” series<\/mark><\/a><\/strong>. We’re following the money<\/mark><\/strong><\/a>, telling you who is backing whom leading up to the November election.

And we’re putting it all on our one-stop shop election dashboard<\/mark><\/strong><\/a>, where you can find everything related to local races.

We can’t do it without your support. Help keep voters informed: Make a tax-deductible donation<\/strong> to Mission Local today.One-timeMonthlyAnnuallyDonation amount<\/p>\n\n\n\n

$<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three-fourths of our revenue comes from readers like you!Donate!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Mission<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Stay informed on local elections \u2014 sign up for\u00a0Mission Local’s free daily newsletter<\/strong>\u00a0today!Sign up<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

JOE RIVANO BARROSSENIOR EDITOR<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

joe.rivanobarros@missionlocal.com<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joe was born in Sweden, where half of his family received asylum after fleeing Pinochet, and spent his early childhood in Chile; he moved to Oakland when he was eight. He attended Stanford University for political science and worked at Mission Local as a reporter after graduating. He then spent time in advocacy as a partner for the strategic communications firm The Worker Agency. He rejoined Mission Local as an editor in 2023.More by Joe Rivano Barros<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by\u00a0JOE RIVANO BARROS APRIL 24, 2024 (MissionLocal.org) Sign up below to get Mission Local\u2019s free newsletter, a daily digest of news you won\u2019t find elsewhere.Sign up Of the bevy of billionaire-backed pressure groups that have mushroomed in San Francisco, excoriating progressives for urban ills from drug-infested streets to sclerotic housing production, one stands… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36252"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36252"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36252\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36253,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36252\/revisions\/36253"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}