Greenberg: Nextdoor Violated Campaign Finance Laws in SF Recall Election

Community online network Nextdoor, a publicly traded company based in San Francisco, has become central to local discourse including being a place to list second-hand items for sale or to give away, to post government agency safety alerts and to promote social events like neighborhood street fairs.

In the context of the September 16, 2025, recall election targeting San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 4’s Joel Engardio, Nextdoor has instead engaged in actions that crossed a legal line.

Joel Engardio directed employees or campaign allies inside Nextdoor to delete posts critical of Engardio which encouraged a yes vote to oust him from office. Whistleblower screenshots from Engardio’s special Slack account serve as appalling proof. His operatives also reportedly deactivated user accounts of individuals posting opposition content, thereby suppressing dissent, benefiting Engardio’s anti-recall effort.

Under campaign finance laws, these Nextdoor’s actions equate to an “in-kind contribution” to Engardio’s campaign, providing a tangible benefit to him required to be reported periodically to the San Francisco Ethics Commission. If the value of such activity by Nextdoor operatives exceeds $1,000, local law requires registration and financial disclosures. The so-called Press Exemption (2 U.S.C. § 431(9)(B)(i)) shields traditional media entities—newspapers, broadcasters, and similar outlets—engaged in “legitimate press functions” from treating their media coverage as contributions. However, Nextdoor, primarily a platform for user-generated neighborhood discussions, does not qualify for this exemption.

Their website claims users receive real-time public safety alerts, uncover hidden gems your neighbors love, declutter your home through online ads, garage sales and find a handyman.

In the Joel Engardio recall, his campaign allies include at least one person revealed to be serving on Nextdoor’s local San Francisco online comment moderation team, which have deleted posts supportive of recalling Engardio; they have banned Nextdoor users, as evidenced by screenshots and reports. Such biased, partisan comment moderation provided a direct benefit to Engardio’s campaign by silencing criticism. Nextdoor’s deletion of posts and deactivation of accounts provides a measurable benefit by suppressing visibility of the recall effort and amplifying Engardio’s campaign position. For instance, removing posts urging a “Yes” vote reduces exposure for voices in favor of his recall, effectively acting as negative advertising against the recall and promotion for Engardio. Banning users who criticize Engardio silences opposition, akin to his campaign paying to suppress dissent. These actions have a monetary value equivalent to the advertising or services a campaign would purchase for the same effect.

FEC rules define in-kind contributions as “the provision of any goods or services without charge” that benefit a campaign. San Francisco’s Ethics Commission further mandates that any person or entity making expenditures over $1,000 to influence a local election, including in-kind contributions, must register as a political committee and file disclosures. By his operatives selectively moderating content in coordination with Engardio’s campaign, Nextdoor provided a service—speech suppression—that enhances his electoral outcome, especially in the hyper-local District 4 election where Nextdoor’s platform dominates neighborhood discussions. Nextdoor must calculate the fair market value of its suppressive actions and report them to the San Francisco Ethics Commission. The value is the cost a campaign would incur to achieve equivalent suppression through paid means, such as advertising.

Here’s how this applies to the Engardio recall scenario: 1) Deleting posts mentioning the recall, or critical of Engardio. The value is based on the advertising equivalent of suppressed visibility. 2) Deactivating critical user accounts: Estimate lost visibility for the pro-recall effort. 3) Platform Costs: Include server or moderation costs. 4) Moderator salary for monitoring Nextdoor. The cumulative fair market value, if exceeding the $1,000 threshold, requires registration and financial data disclosure.

Nextdoor’s failure to report these actions undermines the purpose of federal and San Francisco campaign finance laws: ensuring transparency and preventing corruption. The Supreme Court has upheld disclosure as essential to inform voters about campaign funding. When Nextdoor suppressed speech in the Joel Engardio recall, it acts as a dark money campaign arm, akin to an unregistered Super PAC, particularly impactful in local elections. San Francisco voters deserve to know Nextdoor is donating services by silencing recall supporters. Their non-compliance risks secret coordination, which FEC and local laws seek to prevent, and both the FEC and San Francisco Ethics Commission should investigate and impose fines for such violations.

The yes on recall committee raised $270,000 and Engardio anti-recall committee raised $820,000. State Senator Scott Wiener and former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi came out to support him too. Yet Joel Engardio was recalled anyway.