Supervisor Aaron Peskin may have lost his bid for mayor, but he isn’t going anywhere.
Though he’ll soon be termed out from his longtime perch on the Board of Supervisors, the Napoleon of North Beach is priming to rally progressive troops against the monied interests who spent millions of dollars in the election.
“I don’t think San Francisco needs new organizations. They just need better coordination and leadership,” he said. “And this is a ripe opportunity to bring them all together.”
In an interview with The Standard, Peskin said that despite speculation, he isn’t interested in serving as, for instance, chief of staff for mayor-elect Daniel Lurie or the city’s first inspector general. (Regardless, Peskin would be barred from such roles by a rule that prohibits employment at City Hall for a year after leaving.) But Peskin did call Lurie to offer any help he could, he said.
Instead of a staff role, Peskin plans to unite a loose collection of progressive Democrat groups — neighborhood groups, Democratic clubs, civic organizations, and labor — to push back against the influence of wealthy power players in local politics.
A cadre of folks whose net worth borders on the bonkers — including billionaire Bill Oberndorf, who backs Republicans nationally, and The Standard chairman Michael Moritz — have channeled millions of dollars into political groups like TogetherSF, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, and GrowSF.
In this election, such well-heeled donors dropped coins aplenty: Moritz spent $3.1 million; Oberndorf spent $1.1 million; former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, $1.4 million; Ripple CEO Chris Larsen, roughly $1 million; and tech angel investor Ron Conway, $438,000. That’s to say nothing of the city’s new mayor, Levi Strauss heir Daniel Lurie, who self-funded his campaign to the tune of $8 million.
The outcome of all that spending was mixed.
Proposition D, the brainchild of TogetherSF and backed heavily by Neighbors, aimed to hack San Francisco’s 100-plus commissions down to 65 and give the mayor more authority — but it crashed and burned. TogetherSF argued that the city has too many unelected bodies that slow down decision-making.
The mayoral candidate backed by some of those moderate groups, Mark Farrell, came in fourth, despite leading in early polls. Bloomberg and Larsen backed Mayor London Breed. And as for the Board of Supervisors, moderate and progressive candidates came to essentially a draw.
For all those failures, the talk of the insider class is the fate of Kanishka and Jay Cheng, the power couple who lead, respectively, TogetherSF and Neighbors. Will Oberndorf and Moritz kick them to the curb, especially as Peskin is threatening to make their political lives hell?
Peskin described the election as a “sound repudiation of the billionaires and their vitriolic organizations,” vowing to “stay focused on keeping them at bay.”
For his part, Moritz argued that the allied moderate groups “moved the city’s political pendulum to the center.”
In the election, “the vast majority of San Franciscans voiced their anger with the way in which they have been ignored and belittled for many years by a coterie of extreme progressives whose policies have crippled the city,” Moritz said in a statement. And while Prop. D failed, Moritz said he was glad charter reform will be a “central issue” for City Hall moving forward.
“If Aaron Peskin wants to do to progressives what Biden did to Democrats — ignore the message and overstay his welcome — that’s his decision,” Moritz said.
Despite TogetherSF and Neighbors’ losses, Peskin and other progressives worry that San Francisco’s political future has a “for sale” sign staked in its front yard. Notably, Lurie’s electoral success may send a signal about how much money it takes to lock in the mayor’s office.
Peskin wants to make sure that future doesn’t come to pass.
Voters may back him up. Despite Peskin’s own challenges as a citywide candidate, ballot measures championed by progressives — and those authored by Peskin in particular — performed swimmingly in the latest returns.
The winning ticket includes Proposition C, Peskin’s proposal to create an inspector general to investigate city corruption; Proposition E, Peskin’s alternative pitch to assess San Francisco’s commission system; and Proposition G, an affordable housing subsidy that launched with a who’s who of progressive support.
California Democratic Party Vice Chair David Campos said Peskin could be uniquely equipped to unify San Francisco progressives.
“He has the experience, acumen, and skills needed to herd the progressive cats,” Campos said.
Former campaign consultant David Latterman has seen that firsthand in his decades in city politics, often opposing progressives. He lampooned them for putting forth “ridiculous firebrand” candidates that mainstream voters have at times rejected.
But, he admitted, it’s the push and pull between Democrats of all stripes that sparks the ideas that make San Francisco a national trailblazer.
“I do believe the progressive movement, in the big picture, is the beating heart of the city,” he said.
And Peskin aims to ensure it stays that way.