The 2024 election is likely to be recorded in history as the year of the billionaires. Their money has influenced this year’s ballot from presidential contests to state and local races.
But even people with ten-figure net worth didn’t get everything they wanted.
Daniel Lurie prevailed in San Francisco’s mayoral race. Lurie is an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, and spent over $8 million in his largely self-financed campaign. The fortune of his parents—Peter and Miriam Haas—is estimated at $5.5 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaire Index. While that’s smaller than Donald Trump’s $6.5 billion, it’s hardly chump change.
Multi-billion dollar corporations and other well-financed organizations funded statewide campaigns supporting Proposition 36 and opposing Proposition 33. Voters passed Prop. 36, which will increase criminal penalties on certain drug and theft-related offenses. Had the defeated Prop. 33 passed, it would have dismantled a state law forbidding cities to enact their own rent control measures.
San Francisco plutocrats sought to redesign commissions and other policymaking bodies in city government by sponsoring Prop. D, but that failed, while a local supervisor’s competing measure passed.
Just exactly how far the power of billionaires will expand in this new political reality hasn’t been determined yet, and nor has the election’s impact on low-income and unhoused communities and their allies. But at least the amount of money funneled into their political pursuits can be measured. The San Francisco Ethics Commission tracks monetary contributions in local races; the Fair Political Practices Commission in statewide contests.
Daniel Lurie’s campaign raised $9.6 million, with the lion’s share of donations coming from Lurie himself, according to City records. His mother, Miriam Haas, gave $1 million, while his brother, Ari Lurie, ponied up $150,500. Other contributions numbered in the hundreds of thousands.
Prop. 33 got on the ballot as a remedy to rising rental costs and a preventative to evictions that often lead to homelessness. If Prop. 33 had passed, it would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Act and empowered cities to craft their own rent control laws. It was the third electoral attempt at repeal since 2018, but Realtors, rental property owners and financial service companies outspent proponents 3 to 1 to prevent statewide expansion of rent control.
The proposition’s opponents spent $123 million to supporters’ $37 million. The California Apartment Association and San Francisco Apartment Association, as well as the California Chamber of Commerce, were among the organizations that together contributed $123 million to defeat the measure. In contrast, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sponsored the measure, raised only $37 million.
The coalition opposing Prop. 33 responded with Prop. 34, a ballot measure that requires health providers to spend most federal drug prescription revenues on direct patient care. The proposition was criticized as targeting the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for championing Prop. 33. As of publication time, Prop. 34 is leading by a 2-point margin in the tally.
Other anti-Prop. 33 organizations include the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies and the information technology company Global Management Resource Management, Inc.
Though Prop. 36 scored an overwhelming victory at the polls, it was less lopsided in election spending. This proposition is an attempt to change a previous measure that reduced some criminal offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Supporters contributed $9 million to opponents’ $8 million.
Under Prop. 36, these acts will revert to felony offenses, leading to increased jail time. The top three contributors include Walmart, Target and Home Depot at $4 million, $1 million and $1 million. Rounding out the top 10 in heavy donors were In-N-Out Burgers, 7-Eleven and political action committees from the California Business Roundtable and the state prison guards’ union.
The billionaire class suffered one setback in San Francisco: Opponents rejected Prop. D with 56% of the vote. If it had passed, this measure would have reduced the number of commissions overseeing the City’s departments—and expanded the mayor’s power over them.
TogetherSF, which was founded by venture capitalist Michael Moritz, and other right-wing supporters sponsored Prop. D. By himself and through a committee supporting Mark Farrell’s mayoral bid, Moritz contributed $600,000 to TogetherSF’s efforts. In total, Mortiz’s clique spent $2.5 million promoting Prop. D and opposing Prop. E, a competing measure that passed by a 4-point margin.
Prop. G, another scrappy by San Francisco standards campaign, won with a resounding 58% “yes” vote. It would establish funding for rental subsidies for affordable housing that serves low-income individuals and families, and people with disabilities. It passed with just $223,000 in monetary funding from community-based organizations.
But the victories against Prop. D and for Prop. G are outliers. In the immediate future, the billionaire class’s influence on politics at all levels will remain unabated. It’s up to the people to follow the money.
###
TOTAL MONEY SPENT ON NOVEMBER 2024 CAMPAIGNS as of Nov. 12
San Francisco
Yes on D: $2,547,252
Yes on G: $223,537
(Note: no data provided for Yes on E)
California Prop 33
No: $123,171,200
Yes: $37,050,534
California Prop 36
Yes: $9,360,990
No: $8,320,000
Sources: SFethics.org, fppc.ca.gov
