The Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, a chartered chapter of the local Democratic Party, filed an ethics complaint against District 1 supervisorial candidate Marjan Philhour today, alleging that she misspent campaign funds and violated campaign-contribution limits.
Philhour denied any wrongdoing, and said the complaint was a last-minute attempt to muddy the waters before the March 5 election.
“My campaign is in full compliance with state and local law,” she said. “These allegations are a desperate 11th-hour attempt by a political machine that is out of touch with everyday San Franciscans and has hurt our neighborhoods.”
Philhour, while running for supervisor in November’s election, is also seeking a seat on the Democratic County Central Committee, the San Francisco chapter of the Democratic Party, this Tuesday.
The Milk Club filed its complaint with the San Francisco Ethics Commission this morning, alleging that Philhour mixed her campaign funds: She has spent dollars from her Democratic Central County Committee race to benefit her supervisorial race, the complaint alleges, and vice versa. This commingling of funds, they allege, creates an end-run around San Francisco’s campaign-contribution limits.
If the complaint is substantiated, Philhour could lose public financing for her supervisorial race, and face a hefty fine up to triple the value of the allegedly improper spending.
While candidates for supervisor have strict $500 campaign contribution limits and cannot accept funds from corporations, candidates for DCCC can accept unlimited donations, including from corporations.
Philhour has amassed a six-figure sum for her Democratic Central County Committee race: $245,000, according to ethics filings, the second-most of any of the 51 contenders in the race.
The Milk Club is a political opponent of Philhour’s. Philhour is running for DCCC on the San Francisco Democrats for Change slate, but the club has endorsed the rival Labor and Working Families slate.
Philhour is also running this November against Supervisor Connie Chan, the District 1 incumbent. It is the third time Philhour has run for the district seat: She lost in 2016 to Sandra Lee Fewer, and again in 2020 to Chan, by 125 votes.
The Milk Club complaint lists 36 instances in which it alleges that Philhour flouted campaign laws, including TV ads, a website, and “get out the vote” events paid for by both campaigns. Today’s complaint also charges that staff members paid by the DCCC campaign seemingly also worked on the supervisorial campaign.
“I would say that this is not only the most blatant, but defiant violation of the campaign-finance ordinance. While candidates for supervisor have run for DCCC before to get name recognition, never have they been so blatant before as to put on their campaign materials, ‘Paid for by Marjan for Supervisor’ and ‘Paid for by candidate for DCCC,” said Paul Melbostad, an attorney and member of the Milk Club who sat on the San Francisco Ethics Commission from 1995 to 2003.
“Clearly she’s commingling funds, which is significant, because there’s no contribution limit to DCCC elections,” he added.
Philhour countered that she was, in fact, punctilious: The disclosure of spending by both campaigns was her attempt to detail all expenditures to ensure everything is above-board.
And Jim Sutton, a preeminent campaign finance lawyer in San Francisco, agreed with the candidate.
“I don’t think that’s enough to justify the Ethics Commission looking at it,” he said of the allegations against Philhour, speaking generally but without reviewing them in detail. (Sutton has donated $600 to Philhour in past elections.)
He said that as long as expenses are “truly split in half” between campaigns, it is common practice to have one campaign pay for a portion of an ad, for instance, and another campaign pay for the rest.
Still, Sutton said, questions about improper spending by candidates running for both DCCC and supervisor will remain a fixture of San Francisco politics as long as the “loophole” allows candidates to raise unlimited funds for one race and gain name recognition for another.
“This is going to keep on going. Everyone’s doing it; everyone’s trying to push the envelope,” he said. To candidates, his advice was: “You need to pay attention. This is a loophole. It is, and it could be a big electoral advantage, so you have to dot your i’s and cross your t’s.”
In this case, Sutton felt Philhour had adequately done this.
This is the second ethics complaint filed against a candidate for supervisor this week, following an allegation made Wednesday against Bilal Mahmood, who is running in District 5 to unseat Supervisor Dean Preston. Mahmood was also accused of using DCCC funds to bolster his supervisor campaign; Sutton, for his part, felt the complaint against Mahmood was plausible.
Mahmood, who is also running for Democratic Central County Committee, has fundraised the most of any DCCC candidate at $250,000.
Both Philhour and Mahmood are on a slate of DCCC candidates hoping to take over the body, which progressives have controlled for eight years. Their Democrats for Change slate has outraised its rivals some 3-1, largely taking funds from big-money tech donors who are also funding a loose-knit coalition of candidates and nonprofits hoping to curtail progressive power in 2024.