District 4 supervisor Alan Wong is benefitting heavily from third-party spending in his bid to retain his appointed District 4 seat: He has about $240,000 more backing him than his closest rival, Natalie Gee.
The vast majority of that comes from PACs. Allies of Mayor Daniel Lurie are opening their pockets and have funneled more than half a million dollars to ensure that Wong keeps his seat and Lurie maintains a reliable vote on the Board of Supervisors.
But, excluding that third-party funding, Gee and Wong are neck-and-neck: Both have raised about $120,000 directly from donors, a sign of their strength among actual voters.
A GrowSF PAC has raised more than $306,000 to back Wong. Most of that money came from one man: Michael Moritz, a venture capitalist billionaire and Lurie ally who gave $250,000 in March.
SF Believes, a PAC created by backers of Lurie’s mayoral campaign in 2024, has also spent about $213,000 on Wong, bankrolling campaign flyers, newspaper ads, polling and canvassing. Last week, that PAC received a $250,000 contribution from Jan Koum, co-founder of WhatsApp and a pro-Trump donor.
These committees can accept unlimited sums from donors and corporations, unlike candidates themselves, who must abide by strict $500 limits per individual. PACs have become a favored vehicle for wealthy donors to influence elections.
The two PACs are going on the offensive against Gee: They spent about $24,000 to oppose her. Part of that money went toward mailers that attacked Gee’s stance on crime and public safety, calling her beliefs “disqualifying” and her record on public safety “weak.” Much of their money, about $365,000, was spent pushing Wong.
Gee has her own third-party backing from labor unions. A labor-backed PAC named Affordable SF Now has raised about $300,000. It is solely funded by IFPTE, the union where Gee is an active member and organizer.
David Lee, an educator at San Francisco State University, benefited from $121,000 from Asian Americans for Representation, a PAC that aims to increase Asian representation in government.
The PAC previously backed Asian American supervisor candidates in the 2024 election, including Connie Chan, Chyanne Chen and Sharon Lai.
Candidate fundraising
Excluding public financing, Wong has raised $121,247 from donors, while Gee followed at $120,148.
Gee received the maximum amount of public financing — $255,000 — bringing her total to about $375,000, the highest among the candidates. Candidates qualify for city-provided matching funds at a six-to-one ratio if they pass a threshold of contributions from small donors.
Gee’s contributions came from some 740 individual donors, according to Daniel Anderson, her campaign consultant. About 72 percent of her donations came from San Franciscans and 80 donors were from District 4, Anderson said.
Wong raised a total of $285,000, including some $164,000 in public financing. The incumbent raised only $17,327 in 2025 after his late start — he was sworn in by Mayor Lurie in December — but his fundraising soon picked up and he raised $103,920 from donors in the first four months of 2026.
Many of Wong’s donors came from Lurie’s political and personal network of philanthropists, venture capitalists and real estate developers, most of whom donated $500 to his campaign.
The list includes Lurie’s mother, Mimi Haas; his wife, Rebecca Prowda; Alec Perkins, who helmed the pro-Lurie PAC in the 2024 election; and Vanessa Getty, a member of one of the city’s wealthiest families. Wong also received $500 donations from the plumbers and pipefitters union and the construction trades union.
Gee, meanwhile, received $500 donations from her labor allies, including IFPTE Local 21, the teacher’s union UESF, the healthcare workers union and the Teamsters Local 665. Her donors also came from progressive elected officials such as Phil Ting, Matt Haney, Chyanne Chen, Jackie Fielder and Gee’s own boss, Shamann Walton.
The congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti also gave $500.
So far, Wong has spent more than $182,000 on his campaign, which has gone toward printing, video ad production, consulting and campaign staff salaries.
His campaign also seemed to patronize the businesses around its headquarters on Irving Street, according to campaign finance filings, with several payments to Hole in the Wall Pizza and Uncle Benny’s Donut and Bagel.
As of April 18, Wong has about $104,000 in cash on hand.
Meanwhile, Gee has spent about $165,000, similarly on campaign literature printing, consulting, payroll and a six-month lease of her campaign headquarters on Irving Street. She has raised more and spent less than Wong, with more than $210,000 on hand, the highest among all candidates.
Albert Chow, the hardware store owner and major figure in the Joel Engardio recall, has raised $50,845 and received $60,000 in public financing, bringing his total to $110,845.
Chow has spent a little over $98,000, paying for campaign staff, consulting and accounting services. He also had several payments to the Department of the Treasury, totaling $1,106.04. As of April 18, Chow has $62,146 in cash on hand.
Lee, the educator, has raised $38,259 and has also secured $60,000 in public financing, totaling $98,259. Lee has spent about $48,000 on his campaign, mostly on TV and print ads, staff and consulting. He has about $58,000 on hand.
Jeremy Greco, an administrator at Presidio Hill School and former co-owner of the co-op grocery store Other Avenues, has trailed all of the candidates, raising no money in 2025 and only $2,484 in 2026.
He is the only candidate who supports the Sunset Dunes park.
“Every time there’s a news article that comes out that I don’t have any money, I get money,” he said at a recent candidate forum.
