How much did money matter in the DCCC race? Some, but slate mattered more.

Love what you read? Love that it was free?

Mission Local will never have a paywall. All our articles are free for everyone, always. Help us keep it that way — donate to our end-of-year fundraiser to make Mission Local free for your neighbors.

Donate today!

The San Francisco general election on March 5 drew in a stunning amount of cash: Over $11 million raised on the various ballot measures and candidates, much of it by a clique of wealthy individuals. But how far did that money go to lure voters in the DCCC race? 

Looking at Mission Local’s analysis of contributions raised in the race versus the share of the vote received, not as far as you might think. 

The $11 million we tracked went towards the municipal judge races, the different propositions and the Democratic County Central Committee races.

The latter, the DCCC, is a down-ballot local race in which the winning candidates will be responsible for one primary function: Local endorsements for the Democratic Party. Forty-eight candidates competed for 24 seats across two main slates: Labor and Working Families, the progressive-aligned slate, and the SF Democrats for Change, which seeks to change the party’s direction. 

The SF Democrats for Change outpaced their opponents in raising DCCC campaign contributions by a factor of 3.2 to 1. They also gained most of the seats: 18, versus six for the Labor and Working Families candidates. 

While there may appear to be a correlation between the amount of money raised and the number of votes received for individual candidates, that largely disappears when controlled for slate. 

In other words: Which slate a candidate was on mattered more than the amount of money they raised.

A candidate’s slate mattered more than the amount of money they raised

Data from the San Francisco Department of Elections and the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

“Money is important, but it doesn’t cause the outcome of the election,” said Jason McDaniel, a political science professor at San Francisco State University. 

In a race like the one for DCCC, there are other more important things than money at play, added Jim Ross, a political consultant. 

Namely, name recognition, the candidate’s occupation and, most important, their slate, Ross said. The DCCC is “truly one of those things where collective action is the path to success,” he said. The individual candidates’ campaigns “don’t tend to make a big difference.” 

One slate did vastly outraise the other, however, meaning it was able to plaster the slate’s candidates across the city in mailers and digital ads, and could hire organizers to call voters and knock on doors. The lack of correlation between donations and vote-getting does not indicate money has no effect, but that an individual candidate’s fundraising was less relevant than the fundraising of the slate as a whole.

Other confounding factors, such as popularity and experience, are “extremely hard to observe and isolate,” added Sean Gailmard, a professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley.

While the candidates who raised the most money did win seats on the DCCC, such as Bilal Mahmood ($274,675), Marjan Philhour ($248,100) and Michael Lai ($225,960), others — who raised much less — did, too. 

And among the progressive candidates, there is no relationship at all between money spent and winning a DCCC seat. 

Among the top five candidates on the Labor and Working Families Slate who accrued the most in contributions, including Sal Roselli and Kristin Hardy, only Connie Chan won a seat. 

Instead, as is common for down-ballot races, name recognition likely played a greater role: The winners from the progressive slate were largely former or sitting supervisors: Connie Chan, Jane Kim, John Avalos and Gordon Mar, for instance. Others, such as Michael Nguyen, spent relatively less and still secured a seat.