Daniel Lurie’s spending has put him in league with the most expensive self-funded mayoral campaigns in U.S. history.
In 2009, Michael Bloomberg set a new standard, spending $159 million (adjusted for inflation) of his personal fortune in his successful effort to become mayor of New York. In 2022, Rick Caruso spent $80 million in his bid for L.A. mayor, which he lost to Karen Bass.
This season, with less than two weeks until Election Day, Lurie, a nonprofit founder and heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, has contributed around $8 million to his campaign to become San Francisco’s mayor, providing the vast majority of its total funds. An independent committee supporting his bid has raised an additional $6.3 million.
This might not seem like much compared with Caruso’s or Bloomberg’s contributions. But consider that New York has roughly 10 times the population of San Francisco, while L.A. has five times as many people. Lurie has spent around $10 per person in San Francisco; Caruso and Bloomberg each spent $20 per head (adjusted for inflation) in their respective cities.
That gap may narrow as Lurie continues to spend heavily in the election’s final stretch.
Others who’ve contributed millions in personal funds to their mayoral campaigns are on par with or below Lurie. These include Richard Riordan, who spent around $4 per person during his 1993 campaign for L.A. mayor; Tom Knox, who spent almost $10 per Philadelphia resident in a 2007 primary; Allan Domb, who spent $7 per person in Philadelphia’s 2023 primary; and Jeff Brown, who spent $3 per person in the same 2023 Philadelphia primary.
Though some of these self-funded campaigns were successful, history shows that money doesn’t always talk in municipal elections. Millions spent didn’t deliver Caruso a victory, and Philadelphia has a history of real estate, grocery, and software magnates burning through millions, only to lose in the Democratic primary, as was the case for Knox, Brown, and Domb.
Political consultant Tom Lindenfeld says Americans tend to be more invested in the position of mayor than in statewide or federal offices, expecting more from politicians who can address the issues they see in their backyards.
“That means money alone doesn’t connect,” Lindenfeld said. “There’s something more about connection that’s required that doesn’t exist when running for statewide or a much larger office.”
Mayoral campaigns have gotten more expensive in the last decade. But most candidates raise funds from outside sources, as was the case of Rahm Emanuel in his successful 2011 multimillion-dollar bid for Chicago mayor.
Self-funded mayoral campaigns are less common, even among candidates with the means to spend, according to political consultant Charles Thies.
“They are more rare in mayoral cases, because mayors just don’t have that much power,” Thies said.
Because Lurie chose to forgo public funding, he can contribute an unlimited amount of personal funds to his campaign. Thies said there are advantages to doing so; most important, not having to expend effort on fundraising, which he estimates accounts for one-third of the average candidate’s time. A self-funded candidate can instead spend that time engaging directly with voters and the press and preparing for speaking engagements and debates.
Another benefit, according to Thies: Self-funded candidates can claim independence from special interests. However, this could open them up to claims that they’re buying votes. But the majority of voters don’t care, Thies said — and San Franciscans don’t seem put off: Lurie is running first in the polls.