{"id":438653,"date":"2026-08-20T20:18:08","date_gmt":"2026-08-20T20:18:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/438653\/"},"modified":"2026-08-20T20:18:08","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T20:18:08","slug":"s-f-dems-alter-rules-to-vote-on-billionaire-tax-potentially-defying-state-party","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/438653\/","title":{"rendered":"S.F. Dems alter rules to vote on billionaire tax, potentially defying state party"},"content":{"rendered":"

The California Democratic Party narrowly voted<\/a> in early August to support the upcoming billionaire wealth tax. San Francisco\u2019s local party chapter appears poised to buck that choice: It is taking unprecedented action to independently consider whether to oppose the measure next Wednesday.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The tax, or Prop. 40, would impose a one-time 5 percent levy on roughly 200 billionaires in California. It would use the money raised to fund Medi-Cal, which will face an estimated $30 billion shortfall<\/a> per year once federal tax cuts go into effect on Jan. 1.<\/p>\n

In the past, the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC), the county Democratic Party, would not have been able to break from the state party\u2019s endorsement on California ballot measures. \u201cBy our bylaw, we cannot endorse state propositions, it\u2019s the role of the California Democratic Party,\u201d read the party\u2019s endorsement page in 2020<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

But this year, on June 24, a week after Prop. 40 qualified for the ballot, the local party voted to change its bylaws.<\/a> Now the San Francisco Democratic Party is able to diverge from the state Democratic Party on endorsements of state ballot measures.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The change gives the committee \u201cthe power to take a position\u201d when a measure \u201creally does not align with our values,\u201d Mike Chen, a member who sponsored the amendment in June, said ahead of the vote<\/a>. The Los Angeles County Democratic Party also has the power to make separate endorsements, Chen added.\u00a0<\/p>\n

At that meeting, Michael Nguyen, another DCCC member, asked if anything on the November ballot had prompted the change. Chen replied that he did not have a specific measure in mind when drafting the amendment.<\/p>\n

As of Thursday, Prop. 40 is the only state ballot measure<\/a> that the San Francisco DCCC is considering in its endorsement process, according to its agenda.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe only reason to bring it up is that they object to it,\u201d said Kim Tavaglione, the executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council. \u201cClearly they do.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

David Campos, the former Mission District supervisor and vice chair of the state Democratic Party, agreed. \u201cIf you\u2019re happy with where the state is\u201d on Prop. 40, he said, \u201cthen there\u2019s no reason to put it on the agenda.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Nancy Tung, the San Francisco democratic party chair who opposes<\/a> the measure, said in a statement that the party is considering Prop. 40 locally \u201cbecause the endorsement process at the state executive board meeting was very split, and because of the strong position against held by respected groups like Planned Parenthood and the California Professional Firefighters.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Prop. 40 has picked up its fair share of opposition among Democrats. Gov. Gavin Newsom and his likely successor, Xavier Becerra both oppose the measure. So does Mayor Daniel Lurie, who told San Francisco Business Times<\/a> in January that it would drive revenue out of California.<\/p>\n

The San Francisco DCCC can spend funds promoting its preferred candidates and causes, and do so handsomely: It had $556,120 in the bank as of June 30<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The local DCCC has undergone a shift in recent years. The majority slate of its current elected members were supported<\/a> in their 2024 election by tech-backed political action committees, and lean moderate and pro-business. They took over<\/a> after eight years of progressive control of the party.<\/p>\n

The DCCC also voted in March<\/a> to oppose Prop. D, the San Francisco \u201cOverpaid CEO tax\u201d in the June election. Opposed by Lurie and a barrage of spending, it subsequently lost.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Party members and organizers say that while it is too early to say definitively, it is likely the DCCC will vote to oppose the billionaire tax. Progressives on the body are discussing their options, Nguyen said. \u201cBut we have no votes to stop it.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Voting to oppose the tax would be \u201ca complete change from the party\u2019s practice,\u201d said Peter Gallotta, a progressive member of the San Francisco DCCC since 2017. \u201cIt\u2019s important that there is a one-voice rule where as Democrats we stand together and unite around the state party\u2019s decision and its process around these decisions.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Having the state party taking one position on the billionaire tax, and the local party potentially taking another, Gallotta argued, could be confusing to voters.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople already find it hard to understand where the Democratic Party is on key issues that affect their lives,\u201d he added. \u201cThis is not the time to create more confusion.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Tung, the DCCC chair, disagreed. \u201cI don\u2019t think it will cause confusion any more than seeing opposing views play out during the election,\u201d she wrote. \u201cIt\u2019s important for us to have rigorous debate on issues of statewide significance.\u201d<\/p>\n

Local chapters are not breaking rules by having separate ballot measure positions, said Campos. The state party\u2019s bylaws only prohibit local chapters from diverging on candidate endorsements.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But no other local party has taken up the issue, Campos added.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Much of the San Francisco DCCC\u2019s power lies in its ability to make endorsements. Voters are \u201clooking for information from a trusted source, and there\u2019s no more trusted source in San Francisco politics than the Democratic Party,\u201d said Jim Ross, a political consultant with decades of experience in local politics, during the 2024 election<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

If the local party votes to oppose Prop. 40, it could unlock a war chest from wealthy donors \u2014 many of them billionaires \u2014 who are already giving millions of dollars<\/a> to defeat the measure. Among them are tech titans who have already bankrolled candidates and ballot measures in recent San Francisco elections, like crypto billionaire Chris Larsen, venture capitalist Michael Moritz, Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan and tech financier Ron Conway.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Plus, taking a position against Prop. 40 could unlock vast sums from the state groups fighting the billionaire tax, which the local party could then spend on slate cards promoting other, unrelated candidates. Those groups have spent tens of millions<\/a> to fight the measure already.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe S.F. DCCC slate card and political program would have a shit ton of money from the \u2018No on Prop. 40\u2019 committees,\u201d said Gordon Mar, a progressive member of the local party.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the \u201cNo on Prop. 40\u201d statewide campaign would also gain: It could advertise that the San Francisco Democratic Party, a supposed bastion of liberalism, has come out against the measure. \u201cIt\u2019s an arrow in their bow that they can then utilize and put in the mail pieces across the state,\u201d Gallotta said.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Prop. 40 has a narrow lead in a recent poll<\/a> conducted by UC Berkeley\u2019s IGS Poll, but is below the 50 percent threshold needed: 48 percent of likely voters supported it in the poll, and 41 percent opposed. Divisions were along party lines.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The California Democratic Party narrowly voted in early August to support the upcoming billionaire wealth tax. San Francisco\u2019s…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":438654,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[35072,101,103,102,104,106,105],"class_list":["post-438653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-francisco","tag-election-2026","tag-san-francisco","tag-san-francisco-headlines","tag-san-francisco-news","tag-sf","tag-sf-headlines","tag-sf-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=438653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438653\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/438654"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=438653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=438653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=438653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}