The Greenberg Brief: San Francisco’s Democratic Clubs Deserve Scrutiny

Nancy Pelosi’s campaign brochure arrived at San Francisco voters’ homes just prior to the March 5th Primary elections. It joined the incoming avalanche of dozens of similar political fliers from local candidates, ballot measures, and independent PACs vying for your attention.

Pelosi’s flyers are arguably unnecessary in the first place, since every two years – for literally decades – the now Speaker Emerita has won her re-election to the House of Representatives easily whilst mercilessly steamrolling any opposition. She barely campaigns at all, apart from these mailed flyers; she flat-out refuses to participate in debate with opposing candidates, much to their chagrin. So, for us San Francisco voters, looking over her campaign mailer is the only real opportunity any of us have, to learn about her policies and self-proclaimed “accomplishments.”

Her latest flyer is a fold-out, four-page brochure. The back page shows an extensive listing of organizations and political clubs endorsing her.

It may seem impressive to the unaware. The clubs are a diverse list, gender-varied, racial, religious and regional, a variety of official activist and organizations. Apparently, her years of representing San Francisco’s forty-nine square miles has been so impressive, she’s the voice for everything and everyone imaginable.

There is a city department, an office called the Ethics Commission, tasked with monitoring campaigns, compiling financial reports and providing them to the public on their website at www.SFEthics.org. One can simply go to their website, navigate to the section to obtain a particular committee’s financial disclosures and download a free copy.

It takes just a little bit of practice to learn how to review the committee reports. They are presented in PDF format and the specific reports are on a prescribed California state’s Form 460, so the information presented is uniform and in the same place report to report, year after year, committee after committee.

Grabbing a few of such reports from listed “clubs” having given their nod to Pelosi’s re-election, we can review. Attention, ultimately, should be focused on the actual financial tallies – the donations received, expenses, and cash in the bank – all dollar amounts required be disclosed on a specific, period basis.  And that’s where it becomes clear.

Along with the one example of Pelosi’s mailer is a compilation of 2023 year-end San Francisco-based Democratic political club filings.

From this, one can easily see how just a few “active” clubs have legitimate funding, and how several are minimal, and a few inactive entirely. The data here was obtained from the San Francisco Ethics Commission. It’s an uneven spattering of organizations with respectable financials intertwined with those disingenuous, clubs having little to no activity at all.

This begs the question: how many such campaigns of elected officials and ballot measures make use of this misleading, exaggeration tactic?

To even the casual observer, it’s a bit strange to claim any one club has power and influence when on its own financials they report a mere $270 in annual donations and $108 in the bank. Such is the case, for illustration, the Richmond District Democrat Club, a group of very left-wing loudmouths. It’s just so disingenuous.

One thing is clear: an interesting pattern has emerged. Nearly all candidates for office make use of myriad “club” endorsements, which are ultimately nothing more than a club name and a few hundred dollars on hand to “legitimize” its existence.

At such time that, unfortunately, “fake news,” gaslighting, even lying, like ousted congressman George Santos, deception has become mainstream in politics. San Franciscans need more checks and balances [pun very much intended] to scrutinize so-called political clubs that dole out an endorsement and candidates that eagerly clamor for them to fill their mailers.

The Pelosi images for the column are photos of the flyer taken by Richie Greenberg. The financial report is his report based on the SF Ethics commission reports.