Name: Chesa Boudin recall: S.F. data shows who’s funding both sides of campaign
Brand: sfchronicle.com
SKU: sfchronicle-com-208
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Chesa Boudin recall: S.F. data shows who’s funding both sides of campaign

preview

This is a carousel. Use Next and Previous buttons to navigateChesa Boudin drew widespread attention in late 2019 when he ran for San Francisco district attorney — part of a burgeoning “progressive prosecutor” movement that aims to shift local prosecution efforts to white collar crime and law enforcement misconduct, while de-emphasizing lower-level property and drug offenses.Now, a little more than a year into his tenure, Boudin is , and it’s clear he remains a polarizing figure at the national level. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have poured in to support both Boudin and the recall effort, much of which came from donors outside of San Francisco. The pro-recall campaign must collect 51,325 signatures by August 11 to qualify for a special election.The Chronicle analyzed contributions made to pro- and anti-recall committees from early February, when the pro-recall committee formed, through the end of March. The pro-recall group, the Committee Supporting the Recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin, has raised nearly $140,000 from 122 individuals and eight organizations, according to the data, while the anti-recall committees have raised more than $200,000 from 116 individuals and two organizations. These totals also include unitemized donations of less than $100.The pro-recall committee’s biggest donors include Daniel O’Keefe, a Chicago-based investor and former San Francisco resident who contributed $50,000, and , an entrepreneur and tech mogul who sold his company, Yammer, to Microsoft . Sacks contributed $25,000.Chesa Boudin RecallThe anti-recall effort includes two local committees. The first, Friends of Chesa Boudin Opposing the Recall, is sponsored by Boudin himself. The second is San Franciscans Against the Recall of Chesa Boudin, a local offshoot of the Real Justice PAC, a political action committee that “works to elect reform-minded prosecutors at the county and municipal level,” . The PAC’s highest-profile co-founder, Shaun King, is an activist who has received attention for his work exposing police brutality. He has also garnered controversy over claims he has &nbsp;related to other projects.The Real Justice PAC has contributed $100,000 to its local, anti-recall committee. A spokesperson for Real Justice PAC said this contribution is aggregated from over 2,600 unique individual donors who gave to the PAC’s general fund.Individuals who gave the most to the anti-recall campaign include Anne Irwin, who contributed $11,000. Irwin, who lives in San Francisco, is the founder of Smart Justice California, a local political committee that contributed $15,000 to the anti-recall effort. Albert “Al” Sweigart, a software developer and author who also lives in San Francisco, also contributed $10,000.While the majority of each committee’s individual contributions came from San Franciscans, both committees had sizable inflows of cash from people living elsewhere. Of the donations from individuals, nearly 50% of the money given to the pro-recall movement came from people living outside of San Francisco, with the majority of that amount coming from O’Keefe. Out-of-city donors made up 11% of all individual donors.The anti-recall campaigns, on the other hand, saw more individual donors from outside the city — 46% of their donations came from people not living in San Francisco — but those contributions amounted to only 25% of the committee’s individual contributions overall.However, it’s likely that out-of-city donors made up a sizable percentage of the $100,000 contribution by Real Justice PAC, which represents 50% of the anti-recall committees’ total funds.Updated to include drought zones while tracking water shortage status of your area, plus reservoir levels and a list of restrictions for the Bay Area’s largest water districts.Within San Francisco, the most popular ZIP codes of residence for pro-recall individual donors — together representing over 20% of individual contributors — were 94123, in Cow Hollow, and 94118, in the Inner Richmond. For anti-recall donors, the top two ZIP codes, representing about 14% of individual donors outside of PACs, were 94110 in the Mission District and 94103 in SoMa.While the anti-recall effort has already outraised the recall supporters, the gap may widen further if current trends continue. According to the data, the pro-recall campaign has attracted donors more or less steadily since February 11, the date of its first contributions.The anti-recall effort, meanwhile, received its first donations on March 22 — meaning it raised nearly $200,000 in just 10 days, not counting unitemized donations. In contrast, it has taken the pro-recall movement 48 days to reach about $123,000.Search the table below to explore individual donations to the campaigns of $100 or more.Susie Neilson is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: Twitter: Nami Sumida is a San Francisco Chronicle data visualization developer. Email: Twitter:Updated to include drought zones while tracking water shortage status of your area, plus reservoir levels and a list of restrictions for the Bay Area’s largest water districts.

This is a carousel. Use Next and Previous buttons to navigateChesa Boudin drew widespread attention in late 2019 when he ran for San Francisco district attorney — part of a burgeoning “progressive prosecutor” movement that aims to shift local prosecution efforts to white collar crime and law enforcement misconduct, while de-emphasizing lower-level property and drug offenses.Now, a little more than a year into his tenure, Boudin is , and it’s clear he remains a polarizing figure at the national level. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have poured in to support both Boudin and the recall...

public

Susie Neilson

Nami Sumida

Delivering the Bay Area’s best journalism every day. Subscribe and support the newsroom: http://SFChronicle.com/subscribe

Chesa Boudin recall: S.F. data shows who’s funding both sides of campaign

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS