Lurie has raised roughly $13 million for Propositions D, E and F, which voters will decide Nov. 3. The measures would give the mayor more authority over city government, while removing his ability to place measures on the ballot unilaterally.

Proposition D would raise the signature threshold for citizen-led initiatives from 2% to 8% of the electorate. Proposition E would expand the city administrator’s contracting authority, and Proposition F would allow the mayor to combine or reorganize entire city departments.

Among the donors are investor Thomas Laffont, who gave $250,000 to the charter campaign despite never previously donating to a San Francisco election; Dropbox CEO Andrew Houston, who gave $100,000; and Hims & Hers CEO Andrew Richard Dudum and his spouse, Lea, who together contributed $125,000. Investor Matthew Sonsini and fintech investor Meyer Malka each gave $100,000.

With the exception of Malka, the donors identified in the campaign as a new political cohort have also been financial supporters, partners or board members of Tipping Point Community, the anti-poverty nonprofit Lurie founded. Other Tipping Point supporters, including donor Michelle Boyers, entered local political giving by backing Lurie’s 2024 mayoral campaign.

The donations reflect a broader shift in San Francisco political spending toward technology and finance figures. Tech investors Chris Larsen and Michael Moritz, along with Larsen’s wife, Lyna Lam, have given about $6 million combined in the current cycle. John Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, contributed $1 million.

Progressive political consultant David Ho said the influx represents a “different type of oligarchy,” with new donors overshadowing families that have long been prominent in local politics. Strategist Eric Jaye compared the spending to “blitz scaling,” a business strategy of spending rapidly to dominate a market.

Lurie’s ballot campaign follows a failed 2024 effort to expand mayoral authority. That proposal, backed by more than $9 million, was associated with mayoral candidate Mark Farrell, whose polarizing campaign became a liability. Lurie, who took office in January 2025, has made himself the public face of the current measures and has spent at least $1.2 million of his own money on consultants and communications professionals since taking office.

Supporters frame the proposals as a way to address waste and dysfunction in city government. Critics, including labor unions and progressive groups, argue that the measures would concentrate power in the mayor’s office and weaken public participation. Raising the initiative signature threshold, they say, could force community groups to spend more on paid signature gathering or make ballot campaigns unattainable for organizations without wealthy backers.

Opposition spending has so far been limited. Labor and progressive groups have raised about $200,000 to fight Proposition D, far below the more than $3 million labor groups spent unsuccessfully opposing a separate CEO tax measure in June. Unions are focusing much of their attention this cycle on supporting Supervisor Connie Chan in a congressional race.

The campaign is also supported by political groups created around Lurie. Believe in SF, founded by financiers Adam Clammer and Alec Perkins, spent $6.7 million supporting his mayoral bid in 2024 and has since operated as a communications and promotional organization. A related political action committee, SF Believes, has received major contributions from Lurie’s new donor network and gave $164,000 to the San Francisco Democratic Party this year.

The local Democratic Party, whose elected committee is controlled by moderates after their 2024 victories, has also received substantial support from business interests. Contributions this year include $225,000 from the Chamber of Commerce, $181,000 from Larsen and $164,000 from SF Believes. Former committee member Gordon Mar, who resigned earlier this month, said the party had become central to wealthy technology interests’ growing influence over civic life.

If all three charter measures pass, they would represent the most extensive change to San Francisco’s governance structure since the city’s 1996 charter revision, according to the campaign’s opponents and supporters. The changes would give the mayor more control over City Hall and could reduce the number of city contracts subject to public discussion and Board of Supervisors approval.