The San Francisco Ethics Commission on Friday levied a $2,513 fine against the “Labor and Working Families Slate,” the group of candidates who attempted, unsuccessfully, to maintain progressive control of the San Francisco Democratic Party last year.
The penalty was issued against the slate and its consultant, Daniel Anderson. The slate suffered a stinging defeat in the March 2024 election, when a group of well-heeled and tech-backed candidates, the “Democrats for Change,” swept the Democratic County Central Committee, the party’s San Francisco chapter. The Democrats for Change won 18 of 24 open seats after spending $2.2 million.
The ethics commission wrote that the progressive slate, which was backed by about $670,000, made contributions to Dean Preston’s campaign for District 5 supervisor in excess of the city’s $500 limit, according to its press release. Preston was not accused of any wrongdoing.
The infraction is over a flyer targeting Bilal Mahmood, Preston’s opponent in the District 5 supervisor race, who ultimately won, 53-47, and is now supervisor. Anderson, according to the settlement, worked with Preston’s team to print a “Bilal hit” flyer and then paid about $7,000 to print it.
Mahmood was also running for a seat on the Democratic County Central Committee as part of the oppositional Democrats for Change slate. The flyer was designed to target him in that contest. “Vote No on Bilal Mahmood for Democratic Party,” it read, alongside “Bankrolled by Billionaires.”
But any expense attacking Mahmood counted as an in-kind donation to Preston, the commission found, and that donation went above the city’s $500 cap. The value of the portion of the $7,000 flyer attacking Mahmood was about $2,600.
“The simultaneous dissemination of a flyer supporting Preston, who is a Supervisor candidate only, and a flyer opposing Mahmood, who is an opposing Supervisor candidate, created a presumption that the ‘No on Mahmood’ flyer supported a vote for Preston,” the commission wrote.
In assessing the penalty, the commission wrote that Anderson fully cooperated with the investigation and did not have a prior history of violations.
Anderson, in a statement, said the case “shows that we’re in uncharted waters when it comes to communications around candidates who are running for multiple offices simultaneously,” and that the slate “believed we were in full compliance with all rules when we were producing the piece in question.”
The ethics commission seldom issues fines and this is a minor one: Over 2024 and 2025, the commission levied about $201,000 for violations, the vast majority from its $108,000 penalty against Mark Farrell during the mayor’s race, and another $54,000 fine against the pressure group Neighbors for a Better San Francisco for violations during the 2022 district attorney recall.
Disclosure: Daniel Anderson briefly consulted for Mission Local in 2023.
“Democrats for Change” = “Republicans who don’t use the R-word” in reality.
So the Labor and Working Families Slate (for the DCCC) paid for a ” No on Bilal” flyer distributed in a district (AD19) where Bilal wasn’t running for DCCC (in March), but would later be running against Dean Preston (in November, because it overlapped with D5), and the Preston campaign organized the lit drop that distributed this flyer? Yeah, that’s shady. The Labor and Working Families Slate had no reason to campaign against Bilal in a district where he wasn’t running for DCCC. The Ethics Commission was right to call this a contribution to Preston’s campaign, done with direct coordination over email with Preston’s campaign and even using Preston’s campaign consultant (Jim Stearns) for production of the flyers. A fine well-deserved.