San Francisco’s “Overpaid CEO” tax has failed.
The measure would have raised taxes on businesses whose top executive makes more than 100 times more than the company’s median employee, but it is trailing 54-46.
Labor unions placed the tax, also known as Proposition D, on the ballot to help fill the city’s $600 million deficit. Because of the deficit, Mayor Daniel Lurie has cut programs and laid off city employees.
Proponents argued that the new revenue from the tax measure was necessary for maintaining essential city services, such as healthcare, after President Donald Trump cut funding for Medicare.
“The consequences are real,” said Scott Mann, spokesperson for the Yes on D campaign. “The cuts that follow will fall hardest on the people who can least afford it — the patients who depend on our public hospitals, the families who rely on city services, and the workers who make this city run.”
This persuaded a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors to support the measure.
But opposing it was Lurie and the city’s Chamber of Commerce. They expressed concern that it would lead to businesses leaving the city or refusing to open up at a time when the mayor has made filling vacant storefronts a priority, particularly in downtown.
“We have defeated Prop. D, thanks to voters who have watched the city recover and are not interested in gambling on the progress we’ve made,” said Rodney Fong, president and CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
The campaign opposing Prop. D spent $5.8 million, outstripping the Yes on D campaign, which spent $2.7 million.
Some of that money went to Proposition C, a competing measure that the Chamber of Commerce placed on the ballot.
Prop. C kept the city’s tax structure mostly the same, but included language saying that if both measures passed, only the measure receiving more votes would go into effect. Prop. C is failing 65-35.
Though Lurie was the face of the No on D campaign, he also opposed Prop. C, arguing that ballot showdowns are counterproductive.
“I am grateful to every voter who waded through another ballot fight featuring two confusing, competing measures, and made their voice heard,” Lurie said about the results.
But he also echoed Fong’s argument: “Voters recognize that our recovery depends on creating opportunity through jobs, thriving small businesses, and attracting investment — not making it harder for employers to grow here.”
Mann clapped back. “It’s a sad day for San Francisco when Mayor Lurie partnered with billionaires and corporations who received massive tax cuts from the Trump Administration, rather than champion for San Francisco’s best interest as critical cuts loom,” he said.
Though around 20 percent of the ballots still remain to be counted, about two-thirds of the 42,000 remaining ballots would have to break in favor of Prop. D for it to pass.
“Mathematically possible, highly unlikely,” said San Francisco State University political science professor Jason McDaniel.
Though the margin of loss was greater on election night when only about half of ballots had been tallied — 55-45 — since then, Prop. D has only managed to lose by less; every single ballot count update has included more no votes than yes votes.
Logic won and irrationality lost. The voters did not want SF to become like Oakladn or Seattle. They want the city to have more economic development, more tax revenues, and more large and small businesses to come back, which also means more jobs. Why would some proponents of prop D be against this?
The rich win again.
It looks like the days of public sector labor functioning as the fundraising arm of the political class by running revenue measure after revenue measure are drawing to a close, as running revenue measure after revenue measure appears to be the straw that broke the camel’s back with respect to right wing charter reform that will weld shut access to the initiative process by raising sig thresholds.
What’s really interesting in the precinct level results is the overlap between Chan’s wins on the west side and Prop D’s losses in those same precincts.
I am not interested in seeing San Francisco become a desolate and bankrupt city with fleeing businesses and with high business vacancies because of the attempts of the Seattle’s progressive socialist mayor who decided to tax the millionaires who own local and national businesses.
I suppose we are supposed to conclude that it was a waste of time to make any demands of our “betters”.
They’ve been getting their way for a long time now.
Is this democracy? What was the percentage of voter turnout again?
People here should read what Andre Damon wrote for the World Socialist Web Site recently about what we need to do with Elon Musk who makes other CEOs look like small potatoes: expropriate him!
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/06/04/kaod-j04.html
Friendly request: is it possible to grey out GGP in these maps? Unless the maps actually represent the votes of people who live in the park. Although I imagine registrations stating that a voter lives in a public park are considered invalid…?
Hey I might tell lame jokes but at least I don’t spend my Tuesdays shilling for parasitic corporate douchebags and their never-worked-for-a-living inherited wealth enablers.