In every campaign finance filing in the race to succeed Rep. Nancy Pelosi, State Sen. Scott Wiener has raised more than Supervisor Connie Chan, building a $3 million fundraising lead over his opponent.
But from July through September, he was the one to bring in less: $936,000 compared to Chan’s $1.1 million.
That means during the critical home stretch of the election, both Chan and Wiener have almost exactly the same amount left to spend: $843,000.
The final weeks before an election are typically when campaigns ramp up spending and splurge on big-ticket expenses like television ads, mailers, and ads on social media and streaming platforms.
Chan’s campaign hopes it can make up what is a gap of perhaps 5 points or more by painting Wiener as a “corporate Democrat,” a phrase she used at Tuesday’s final congressional debate.
Chan’s messaging has focused on blasting Wiener for ties to Silicon Valley, backing from billionaire funders, and portraying herself as labor’s pick.
Wiener’s ads tout his legislative accomplishments and frame Chan as an obstructist who blocks laws — and housing.
Chan is embattled financially. Wiener’s $5.3 million total is more than double Chan’s $2.2 million — and he has millions in support from outside PACs. Those groups have spent a stunning $3.3 million to back his candidacy and another $1.7 million to attack Chan. Pro-Chan PACs have only spent $940,000 for their candidate, and $260,000 to blast Wiener.
Much of Chan’s recent success — she raised more money between July and September than in the seven months before that — may be due to a new finance director, and Pelosi: The speaker emerita, who endorsed Chan before the primary, has hosted several fundraisers for Chan that collectively brought in hundreds of thousands.
Pelosi’s family members also pitched in $8,000 in late September, and at least 18 current or former Pelosi aides donated a combined $12,310 to Chan this quarter.
Wiener’s campaign attacked Chan for the contributions: The city supervisor is tapping into “D.C. insiders” to bankroll her race, spokesperson Joe Arellano said. She received at least $15,250 from 17 donors with federal lobbying records, including some of Pelosi alumni, though her campaign said it will return $3,500 from a pharmaceutical lobbyist.
“Connie Chan may have concocted an image of herself as a progressive fighter, but her fundraising proves otherwise: she is firmly a member of the status quo establishment,” he said.
Chan’s campaign has taken aim at Wiener’s tech backers. Wiener’s campaign, unlike Chan’s, has also received significant support from major tech donors. Among them: crypto executive Chris Larsen, former venture capitalist Jeremy Liew and Twilio co-founder John Wolthuis.
“Wiener’s principles sound firm in a campaign speech and become negotiable when there’s a check attached,” Chan spokesperson Ian Krager said.
Krager also criticized Wiener for receiving $3,500 from Akash Jain, an executive at Palantir, whose software is used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Wiener returned the donation from Jain in September due to the Palantir connection, Arellano said.
$6.2 million in outside spending in congressional contest
Since August, PACs connected to each candidate have been spending furiously, mostly for Wiener.
The Abundant Future PAC, a pro-Wiener PAC, has spent $2.2 million so far. Much of the group’s money came from Public First Action, a pro-AI regulation PAC that is backed by Anthropic, which put in $3 million to support Wiener this quarter.
Wiener has also received $1.6 million in support from Families for an Affordable San Francisco, which is mostly union-funded. The Washington Sun reported on Thursday that the PAC and Wiener’s campaign is pushing the limits of campaign finance law by jointly paying for staff members, a pollster and an office.
The PAC marks those expenses as canvassing-related, theoretically allowing them to circumvent federal law: While super PACs are forbidden from coordinating with candidates, a 2024 memo from the Federal Elections Commission allows them to subsidize the cost of canvassing.
GrowUSA, the federal PAC of GrowSF, a moderate political pressure group, also spent $1.6 million to back Wiener. Equality California Votes, a California LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, spent another $167,000.
Most of Chan’s PAC support, meanwhile, comes from labor unions, including a hotel worker’s union and a teacher’s union. The largest pro-Chan group, SF for All, has spent $575,000 to support her and oppose Wiener since the primary.
SF Solidarity, a PAC funded by former congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti, spent $425,000 in June to pay canvassers to do outreach to Chakrabarti’s primary voters and persuade them to vote for Chan in the November general election.
Rising Tide Collective, an independent expenditure committee, supported Chan during the primary and has spent $100,000 against Wiener in September. It has not disclosed its funding source.
A lot more PAC spending may be on the way. SF for All ended August with $802,000 in the bank, according to the most recent available filings. GrowUSA ended September with $1.3 million left in the bank and Abundant Future has $2.1 million to spend.
