Nearly a year after the most expensive mayoral race in San Francisco history, city officials are considering doubling the city’s campaign donation limit to $1,000 to counter the millions pouring into political action committees that have increasing sway over election outcomes.
Bumping the current $500 donation limit, which was established in 2000 for candidate campaigns, including the mayor and Board of Supervisors, could shake up how money influences the city’s elections by weakening some of the power that wealthy donors and special interests have over local races.
Advocates of the change, which is being proposed by the city’s ethics department and will go before the Board of Supervisors this fall, say the current cap has not kept pace with inflation and has become a major disadvantage to candidates who choose not to rely on independent committees to juice their campaigns. The committees are set up separately from a candidate’s account and are not subject to the same donor limits, meaning wealthy individuals and interest groups can contribute huge sums to support their preferred candidate.
City officials said the proposed change, if approved, could be implemented in time for the 2026 election. It would also add a mechanism for future updates to the donor limit.
“If we raised the minimum, what it would do is allow everyday San Franciscans to have a say in their political system,” said Emma Hare, vice chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party and an aide to Supervisor Myrna Melgar. “It gives the little guy a fighting chance.”
Roughly $28 million poured into the November 2024 mayoral race, an eye-popping sum made possible by the spending power of several independent committees set up largely in support of Mayor Daniel Lurie, former Mayor London Breed, and former Supervisor Mark Farrell. Big donors to those candidates included billionaire venture capitalist and philanthropist Michael Moritz (chairman of The Standard), who supported Farrell, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who backed Breed, among others.
Lurie, who spent $9.5 million of his personal funds as an heir to the Levi Strauss family fortune, also got a boost from an independent committee that received a $1 million donation from his billionaire mother and support from a slew of other wealthy individuals.
Labor groups also gave handsomely. The Service Employees International Union Local 1021 contributed more than $1 million to opposing Farrell and supporting ballot initiatives.
The 11-member Board of Supervisors will vote on the proposal in the coming months. It will require a supermajority for passage, including from the five-member Ethics Commission, which is considering the legislation at a Sept. 12 meeting.
After passage by the Board of Supervisors, it would need Lurie’s approval to go into effect. The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the legislation.
The proposal would not increase the money some candidates can receive through a public financing program, which allows mayoral candidates to collect up to $1.2 million and supervisor contenders up to $255,000. That program is intended to level the playing field for those running in local races who might not have the spending power of wealthier candidates or those who have significant backing from independent committees.
“Adjusting the campaign contribution limit for the first time in 25 years to account for inflation will help candidates run viable campaigns from their controlled committees in the face of increasing third-party spending,” Zachary D'Amico, a deputy director at the city’s ethics department, wrote in a statement.
Supporters anticipate opposition from moneyed interests across the political spectrum, including from progressive labor coalitions and tech-backed groups, both of which are typically big spenders in local races.