The California Democratic Party narrowly voted in early August to support the upcoming billionaire wealth tax. San Francisco’s local party chapter appears poised to buck that choice: It is taking unprecedented action to independently consider whether to oppose the measure next Wednesday.
The tax, or Prop. 40, would impose a one-time 5 percent levy on roughly 200 billionaires in California. It would use the money raised to fund Medi-Cal, which will face an estimated $30 billion shortfall per year once federal tax cuts go into effect on Jan. 1.
In the past, the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC), the county Democratic Party, would not have been able to break from the state party’s endorsement on California ballot measures. “By our bylaw, we cannot endorse state propositions, it’s the role of the California Democratic Party,” read the party’s endorsement page in 2020.
But this year, on June 24, a week after Prop. 40 qualified for the ballot, the local party voted to change its bylaws. Now the San Francisco Democratic Party is able to diverge from the state Democratic Party on endorsements of state ballot measures.
The change gives the committee “the power to take a position” when a measure “really does not align with our values,” Mike Chen, a member who sponsored the amendment in June, said ahead of the vote. The Los Angeles County Democratic Party also has the power to make separate endorsements, Chen added.
At that meeting, Michael Nguyen, another DCCC member, asked if anything on the November ballot had prompted the change. Chen replied that he did not have a specific measure in mind when drafting the amendment.
As of Thursday, Prop. 40 is the only state ballot measure that the San Francisco DCCC is considering in its endorsement process, according to its agenda.
“The only reason to bring it up is that they object to it,” said Kim Tavaglione, the executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council. “Clearly they do.”
David Campos, the former Mission District supervisor and vice chair of the state Democratic Party, agreed. “If you’re happy with where the state is” on Prop. 40, he said, “then there’s no reason to put it on the agenda.”
Nancy Tung, the San Francisco democratic party chair who opposes the measure, said in a statement that the party is considering Prop. 40 locally “because the endorsement process at the state executive board meeting was very split, and because of the strong position against held by respected groups like Planned Parenthood and the California Professional Firefighters.”
Prop. 40 has picked up its fair share of opposition among Democrats. Gov. Gavin Newsom and his likely successor, Xavier Becerra both oppose the measure. So does Mayor Daniel Lurie, who told San Francisco Business Times in January that it would drive revenue out of California.
The San Francisco DCCC can spend funds promoting its preferred candidates and causes, and do so handsomely: It had $556,120 in the bank as of June 30.
The local DCCC has undergone a shift in recent years. The majority slate of its current elected members were supported in their 2024 election by tech-backed political action committees, and lean moderate and pro-business. They took over after eight years of progressive control of the party.
The DCCC also voted in March to oppose Prop. D, the San Francisco “Overpaid CEO tax” in the June election. Opposed by Lurie and a barrage of spending, it subsequently lost.
Party members and organizers say that while it is too early to say definitively, it is likely the DCCC will vote to oppose the billionaire tax. Progressives on the body are discussing their options, Nguyen said. “But we have no votes to stop it.”
Voting to oppose the tax would be “a complete change from the party’s practice,” said Peter Gallotta, a progressive member of the San Francisco DCCC since 2017. “It’s important that there is a one-voice rule where as Democrats we stand together and unite around the state party’s decision and its process around these decisions.”
Having the state party taking one position on the billionaire tax, and the local party potentially taking another, Gallotta argued, could be confusing to voters.
“People already find it hard to understand where the Democratic Party is on key issues that affect their lives,” he added. “This is not the time to create more confusion.”
Tung, the DCCC chair, disagreed. “I don’t think it will cause confusion any more than seeing opposing views play out during the election,” she wrote. “It’s important for us to have rigorous debate on issues of statewide significance.”
Local chapters are not breaking rules by having separate ballot measure positions, said Campos. The state party’s bylaws only prohibit local chapters from diverging on candidate endorsements.
But no other local party has taken up the issue, Campos added.
Much of the San Francisco DCCC’s power lies in its ability to make endorsements. Voters are “looking for information from a trusted source, and there’s no more trusted source in San Francisco politics than the Democratic Party,” said Jim Ross, a political consultant with decades of experience in local politics, during the 2024 election.
If the local party votes to oppose Prop. 40, it could unlock a war chest from wealthy donors — many of them billionaires — who are already giving millions of dollars to defeat the measure. Among them are tech titans who have already bankrolled candidates and ballot measures in recent San Francisco elections, like crypto billionaire Chris Larsen, venture capitalist Michael Moritz, Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan and tech financier Ron Conway.
Plus, taking a position against Prop. 40 could unlock vast sums from the state groups fighting the billionaire tax, which the local party could then spend on slate cards promoting other, unrelated candidates. Those groups have spent tens of millions to fight the measure already.
“The S.F. DCCC slate card and political program would have a shit ton of money from the ‘No on Prop. 40’ committees,” said Gordon Mar, a progressive member of the local party.
Meanwhile, the “No on Prop. 40” statewide campaign would also gain: It could advertise that the San Francisco Democratic Party, a supposed bastion of liberalism, has come out against the measure. “It’s an arrow in their bow that they can then utilize and put in the mail pieces across the state,” Gallotta said.
Prop. 40 has a narrow lead in a recent poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s IGS Poll, but is below the 50 percent threshold needed: 48 percent of likely voters supported it in the poll, and 41 percent opposed. Divisions were along party lines.
Why would the SF Democratic party oppose an attempt to get those who benefit most from our government and communities to pay for those benefits?$
Out of one side of our mouths we’re complaining about the visible despair of our most vulnerable residents while using the other to protect the inequality that creates that suffering.
Meanwhile, Democrats wonder why anyone would vote for candidates advocating blaming immigrants for our problems and tearing down the system.
Those fortunate enough to have beds, and to be able to make them, often find themselves sleeping in those same beds. Good luck in 2028!
Just spitballing here, but maybe it’s because Democrats are fake left and are really a soft right party in lib clothing for people who don’t want to think too much about class war economics and imperialism and just want to feel good about themselves by symbolically (but not actually) opposing extreme rightwing freaks who only attained power by the Democrats’ own complicity and even leadership in helping the ruling classes destroy the standard of living of the American working and middle classes in order to make the already fabulously rich even fabulously richer?
Just a thought..
“inequality that creates that suffering”
It is poverty that causes “suffering”. And not any alleged inequality.
Those who pay the most tax are not the beneficiaries of redistributive tax polices but rather pay far more into the system than they take out of it. You punish them at your peril.
Gordon Mar is “progressive”?
And these plutocrat-revering elitists are “moderate”?
Terminology means nothing anymore!
The opposition to this ballot initiative tells you all you need to know! 🙁
Read the frickin’ room, SF Dems. 🙄
When I was a child, the wealthiest paid taxes up to 90% of their income. And, there weren’t so many billionaires then, as it should be. The modern morbidly rich, only desire to hoard their wealth, and refuse to be taxed comparatively with middle and lower class citizens. Those taxes support social safety nets, healthcare, local community services, etc. Now, we have politicians calling themselves Democrats who really should align with the current fascist Repug party. God forbid, those Democratic cowards should give up their billionaire donors and support their actual constituents. Keep it up SF, my family will never spend money in that city again.
I remember the top tier 90% income tax when Eisenhower was president. It was an era of “plenty” (my elementary and junior high school teachers lived in nicer houses than I did and UC was tuition free) and “enough” (everyone dressed economically and families were happy with one car vacation per year). The interstate highway system was built–the same one we can no longer afford to maintain. Since Reagan, top tier tax rates dropped and the public sector has been squeezed. Paul Krugman blames our $40 trillion deficit on the Bush and Trump tax reductions for the rich. California’s billionaire tax could embolden other states who are also starved for money. Will billionaires move to red states? Let them go away. Before the IT gold rush, San Francisco was a charming city (Gore Vidal) and cheap enough for painters and poets (Lawrence Ferlinghetti). Or, where else can you live so comfortably and have access to such talent (Jensen Huang).
“If we tax the rich, they may leave and take their money with them!!” – that argument has been proven to be utter BS for centuries. The thing is, billionaires have made far far far more money and been taxed less and less over the past 20yrs than ever in history. They’ve made INSANE amounts of money and some don’t pay ANY taxes. As far as I’m concerned: gtfo. They’re lucky we don’t simply make it illegal to have a billion dollars in assets and punish with beheading.
When rich people literally don’t pay any taxes because they borrow from their assets for money, paying some rando bank in Delaware interest after they’re dead instead of paying for the things they use in this state, it’s time for them to pay the bill or GTFO. I own property in Washington State. If I wanted, I could move my business to that address and pay myself in WA, avoiding all income tax in CA. But I use the roads, eat in the restaurants inspected by CA inspectors. I walk on sidewalks built by CA governments. I drink water from pipes made by public utilities in CA. I pay for it because I SHOULD pay for it, not because I don’t have the ability to avoid it.
The “Moderates” in the DNC are the reason I’ve left the party after almost 40yrs. I don’t know what happened, but this “moderate” position is so contradictory to modern ethics, it might as well be called “republican – lite”. I could go on and on about the BS I’ve heard from them in person (I see a lot of them and they think I’m politically aligned with my in-laws), but it’s just pure “how do I avoid taxes” and “How do I keep homeless away from my neighborhood”, etc… I’ve even had to explain how Musk and other rich people borrow against their assets instead of drawing an income to avoid taxes completely. One was like, “Can you set that up for me?”. I was like, “You are walking on OUR sidewalk, driving on OUR street, eating in restaurants certified safe by OUR inspectors, etc.. etc.. etc.. I’m thinking, you want ME to pay for all that while you and your millions send interest to some bank in Delaware? THAT is who is voting “democrat” here in SF. I’m so done.
Good news for those opposing 40 if they can paint “hopelessly liberal” San Francisco as also opposing it.
First you ignored what Hitler promised.
Now, when a techie billionaire says he wants to make fertilizer of the poor … ?? …
These people will do what they say and if you think they’re going to rain down “abundant UBI” on us once imminent advances in AI make that possible they should look at what they’re doing right now which is to refuse to address present suffering brought on by the imbalance of wealth with 5% of a billion, how do you think they’re going to react to the first legislation that takes a step toward closing the wealth gap to make that possible which is going to cost them lots more than 5% which they’ll still be able to afford and still be sitting on hundreds of millions at least.
Or, am I being shortsighted and this is just that piece of legislation that drops the Abundance curtain ?
Why am I reminded of the scene from the banned new movie (‘Revolution’ was the name?) where the rural American filling station owner refuses to take American money? Altho, (hello, Donald) he did take Canadian.
What’s that line that fits again here ?
…
“I got a bad feeling about this one, Vern.”
go Niners !!
h.
i’m not voting for it.
‘when a measure “really does not align with our values,” Mike Chen, … said’
Who’s supposed to buy that, they go against it for one and only one reason: A believe that it “does not align with” their interests. (That said, I’m not in the camp that favors prop 40 either)
Boy, the DCCC really wants to become irrelevant. Closing the Great Highway, and now this.
Talk about being tone deaf.
the DCCC has nothing to do with creating Sunset Dunes park.