How did San Francisco’s big-money donors do this election? So-so.

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!

More than $72 million was spent on San Francisco’s November races, the most expensive election in the city’s history. 

Mayor-elect Daniel Lurie drove a disproportionate share of that outlay; he spent more than $8.6 million on his own race, and was bolstered by another $6.6 million in outside spending by a pro-Lurie PAC, which included $1 million from his mother, Miriam “Mimi” Haas.

Lurie’s return on investment, and his mother’s, was high: He will occupy Room 200 come Jan. 8.

What did other donors get for all their money? Some, not a lot.

“The results were mixed,” said Todd David, a Mayor London Breed ally and the political director of the YIMBY group Abundance Network, which created a pro-Breed PAC that raised $3.2 million. “Almost every organization, whether prog or mod, YIMBY or NIMBY, had both wins and losses.”

San Francisco’s wealthiest interests were on opposite sides of the mayor’s race and several propositions after a rupture in the moderate coalition. They spent millions, but most lost at the ballot box.

San Francisco’s top political donors were outgunned by Daniel Lurie, and his mother, in November

Chart by Kelly Waldron.

Besides Lurie, the biggest spender in November (and the man who gained the least for his heavy investment) was Michael Moritz, the venture capitalist and billionaire backer of the group TogetherSF: He poured $3.2 million on the group’s charter reform measure, Prop. D, and their favored candidate, Mark Farrell. Both lost badly.

Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who spent the third-most of anyone on this election, put $1.5 million into London Breed’s re-election.

William Oberndorf, an investor and longtime Republican donor who spent the fourth-most at $1.2 million, backed Farrell and Prop. D. 

Chris Larsen, the cryptocurrency executive, spent $1 million on Breed, enough to be the fifth-biggest donor this cycle. Larsen said Breed was “outgunned financially” this cycle, and faced strong anti-establishment bias. “It’s a brutal time everywhere to be an incumbent, and too many people just thought, ‘She’s the mayor; it’s her fault.’” 

Mimi Haas, for her part, was tied with Larsen for the No. 5 funder after her $1 million donation to her son, Lurie.

But, with the billionaires and millionaires competing, a well-heeled donor taking it on the chin was inevitable.

“Whether it was Bloomberg or Larsen, they were thoughtful. They didn’t win, but they weren’t wasting their money,” said Eric Jaye, a veteran city campaign strategist. “It wasn’t enough to help the mayor overcome the challenges of actually running the city … but it was a discrete amount of money invested strategically.”

Big-money groups, following patrons, also had mixed showing

These donors’ pressure groups also had varied results.

Moritz’s TogetherSF raised $7 million for the losing Prop. D, and spent another $255,000 for Farrell and its endorsed supervisor candidates. It lost the mayor’s race and four of six supervisor races: Marjan Philhour lost in District 1, Matt Boschetto lost in District 7, Trevor Chandler lost in District 9, and Michael Lai lost in District 11. 

On the upside, TogetherSF — and other groups, like GrowSF and the Abundance Network — won in District 3 with Danny Sauter and District 5 with Bilal Mahmood.

Kanishka Cheng, the TogetherSF CEO, said the results “indicate that voters sought change, particularly a shift away from the extreme left” and pointed particularly to Dean Preston’s loss in District 5.

On the loss of Prop. D, perhaps the most shocking outcome of the Nov. 5 race locally, Cheng was equanimous. “We are encouraged that it sparked a conversation about our dependence on commissions, and we look forward to the anticipated commission reforms.”

Public pressure groups spent millions in November races

Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, backed by Oberndorf, spent $950,000 on Prop. D, which lost, and $89,000 against the winning Great Highway measure, Prop. K. It did better with the $48,000 on the Yes on N campaign, and $10,000 on Prop. M. Both won.

In District 7, it was also unsuccessful in using its anti-Prop. K money to boost Boschetto, who lost to the incumbent supervisor, Myrna Melgar.

“I can tell you, from my perspective in District 7, it was clear [Neighbors] had a strategy to maximize and leverage their resources: Farrell, Boschetto, Prop. D, and No on K,” said Melgar. All lost.

Jay Cheng, the Neighbors executive director who is married to the TogetherSF CEO, pointed to overall progressive losses as a victory. Progressives no longer hold a majority on the Board of Supervisors and lost the race for the mayor’s office, after Aaron Peskin was outspent more than 2-1 by Breed and more than 6-1 by Lurie.

The new board, Cheng said, shifts San Francisco “more to the center,” in the “direction we need to move as a city.”

The Abundance Network, backed by multi-millionaire and ex-Pantheon CEO Zach Rosen, had more mixed results: The group supported Breed, raising $3.2 million for her re-election. Its PAC spent $665,000 to back Sauter in District 3, Philhour in District 1, Chandler in District 9, and Lai in District 11. Only Sauter won.

It did, however, back the Yes on K campaign to close the Great Highway to cars, and helped raise $780,000 for it to pass.

GrowSF, too, saw varied outcomes. The group — backed by a slew of tech executives like Larsen, venture capitalist Jeremy Liew, Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan, and ex-Twitch CEO Emmett Shear — spent at least $1.44 million this election cycle.

But its candidates lost in four of six supervisorial races, though its biggest single spend was in District 5, where its $380,000 helped propel Mahmood to victory over Preston and flip the board.

“We only needed to win two seats for that majority,” said Steven Buss Bacio, the GrowSF co-founder, in a statement. “And that's exactly what we did.”

‘Moderate civil war’

For his part, David of the Abundance Network pointed to the split in the mayor’s race as a sign of weakness this election cycle.

“In March, the whole moderate coalition supported the same group of candidates, and we were all collaborating, and we had an outsized win,” said David, referencing the ascension of the Democrats for Change slate to the Democratic County Central Committee, the city’s chapter of the Democratic Party.

That slate, backed by the Abundance Network and wealthy tech donors, won 18 of 24 seats in a March blowout, and gained the power to endow the Democratic Party’s endorsement in local races.

Running as a slate of candidates is uncommon and a measure of tight coordination, which was lacking among those same groups this cycle.

“Fast-forward to November,” David said, “and the moderate coalition basically factioned to London and to Farrell — and Daniel Lurie won."

Moreover, that new power of endorsement at the San Francisco Democratic Party proved feeble in the mayor's and supervisor races: Breed lost, and just three of six endorsed supervisor candidates won. It was more effective down-ballot, however, with six of eight candidates winning in the school board and City College board races.

Asked if there were any lessons learned, Larsen said he “would have worked harder to convince the various business groups” that Breed was not the issue, and to back her instead of rivals. Those groups “shouldn’t have wasted $30 million to essentially have a mayor with the same views and goals” as Breed, he said. “Those efforts should have been laser focused on flipping the obstructionist board and securing real charter reform.”

“To me," added David, "the lesson is: When we fracture, no one is going to win."

The question for San Francisco’s politicos, said political consultant David Ho, is how Lurie treats those donors and operatives who savaged him in “the moderate civil war that unfolded before us.”

Donors like Moritz and Oberndorf and groups like TogetherSF and Neighbors, which funneled hundreds of thousands into attacking Lurie, may find themselves in a political wasteland for the next four years “if Daniel Lurie doesn’t allow them to have a seat at the table,” Ho said. “Is Daniel Lurie going to have a big tent?”

Despite losses, most public pressure groups put on a brave face. In a post-election email, Cheng of TogetherSF emphasized the progressive losses and wrote that her group “played a leading role in making all this happen.” 

GrowSF touted its “Dump Dean” victory, and called it “the largest grassroots effort to oppose an incumbent Supervisor” in city history, though the campaign was almost entirely funded by wealthy donors giving five-figure sums. 

Its co-founder Buss Bacio wrote that he was “thrilled” with the results. “For the first time in a very long time, the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and Board of Education are all aligned,” he wrote. “I call that a total success.”

The post-election victory laps, despite mixed outcomes, are par for the course.

“You spend that much money,” said campaign strategist Jim Ross, “you always have to declare victory.”

Additional reporting by Kelly Waldron.