Monthly Archives: November 2006

Contract and Grant Data at the Federal Level, a project funded by the Sunlight foundation, provides quick and easy access to all of the contracts and grants of the federal government, data similar to what the SF controller’s office has on a local level in San Francisco.  It beat a project mandated by the federal government by a year and spent just a fraction of the cost, as reported by Sunlight’s Larry Mackinson.

Next step is mashing the data with campaign funding and other related information. We’ve started this for San Francisco– at, one can now see a list of entities who appear in both the campaign finance data and the contracts data. But this is only the start of what is possible in helping researchers do jobs like find organizations that have broken the law by contributing in the same year they were awarded a contract.

We mashed by downloading the entire SF contracts data and campaign finance data. What is needed, of course, at both the local and federal levels, are web service APIs, such as what exists for funding data at the state level. These would eliminate the need for mashup applications to download entire databases, and keep data as up-to-date as possible.


Sunlight Foundation’s Collaborative Muckraking

Ellen Miller and Sunlight have yet another innovative project. For this one, they set up a collaborative muckraking project whereby any technical politico (or political techie) could participate by researching nepotism in the congress. Its a great example of how the ‘masses’, with the help of collaborative software, can do important work that would take a single journalists weeks. This project, focusing on spousal relationships of the 435 congress members, took 2 days!

Jay Rosen, NYU journalism professor and founder of the innovative journalism experiment PressThink has a nice article about the project. has an API for State Campaign Funding Data

The Institute on Money in Politics site, is great for finding campaign funding data for any state in the US. They have real people that collect data for each state and even standardize contributor names, something which I know is a problem from my work with the SF site

They also have an API! The first I’ve seen at any level of government for this type of data. I’m already making plans for a California version of which mashes up funding data from the followthemoney API. Funding data and news articles for each politician, all in one place!

Finally, they have a cut and paste widget that you can create at their site with a form. You say what candidate you want, and it dumps html code which gives you a ‘live’ feed. Here’s a sample web page where I pasted in the generated code. It makes something that looks like this:


Thanks for this link goes to John Musser and his ProgrammmableWeb site which is the place to go to find interesting APIs and mashups about anything, even politics.

Who are the ‘business interests’ in SF? Part III

When the media refers to San Francisco ‘business interests’ , about whom do they speak? This article is the fourth in a series exploring this question . We tackle the problem using the campaign finance data that SF political committees must file with the San Francisco Ethics Commission. The data shows the contributions and expenditures made and received and includes committees for individual candidates and for propositions, as well as data about individuals, corporations, and the vendors that spend the money, typically political consultants and lobbyist firms. This data is perhaps best viewed at, a site developed by some University of San Francisco students.

First, who is raising money? The top ten fundraisers consisted of three ‘proposition’ committees, four board of supervisor candidate committees, two business groups, and Newsom for Mayor.

The three committees designed to advocate for or against specific propositions were:

  1. Yes on A, Let’s Rebuild San Francisco Schools
  2. Save Laguna Honda Hospital: No on D.
  3. No on E: The Parking Tax

These committees all raised over $200,000, with Yes on A topping the list at $338,000. Though such committees target specific propositions, it has been speculated that some have more general goals or even target specific candidates. For instance, BeyondChron reported speculation that No on E really had a goal of getting Chris Daly out of office. In 2004, the Chronicle report, “CAMPAIGN 2004 – SAN FRANCISCO Contribution limits don’t crimp spending: Business interests funnel cash to aid certain candidates“, detailed how Donald Fisher’s ‘Yes on Citizenship, No on F’ committee spearheaded a smear campaign of supervisor Gerardo Sandoval when he ran for re-election. So in trying to figure out the landscape, one must consider these ‘proposition’ committees, with their huge bankrolls, to be major players, and perhaps playing for more than their name implies.

What people and companies are behind these efforts, monetarily? Businessman Warren Hellman was the biggest contributor to ‘Yes on A’, putting nearly $50,000 into it personally. Other contributors to Yes on A include Wells Fargo Bank, Bechtel Corporation, and Shorenstein Company LLC.

The top contributor to The No on D effort came from labor, the SEIU United Health Care Workers, who dropped $63,000 into the effort. They also received funds from Donald Fisher ($20,000) and the Turner Construction Company ($15,000) amongst others. No on E was supported by various parking companies as well as the Teamsters Union.

Proposition committees are also funded by business group committees, including the Committee on Jobs, the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. The Committee on Jobs with both Fisher and Hellman as board members, gave $10,000 to Yes on A as well as over $40,000 to the No on C: Save Transbay committee that was targeting Chris Daly. The source of these Committee on Jobs funds? Top contributors were Charles Schwab, Inc., Hellman ($35,000), and PG&E and AT&T ($25,000 each).

Now one cannot jump to conclusions when following these money trails, but one might speculate that Schwab, Hellman, and the telephone companies don’t care much for Chris Daly. Similar trails exist with the BOMA Builder committees, who are funded by numerous smaller donations (TST Mission Street LLC was the biggest at $10,000) but, like the Committee on Jobs, also funnel money to No on C, No on E, and No on D, and even some directly to candidates such as Rob Black, Daly’s competition in District 6.

The Golden Gate Restaurant Association, which is also funded by smaller donations, contributed directly to campaigns, including those of Black, Michela Alioto-Pier, Doug Chan, and Phil Ting.

So we’ve got ‘proposition’ committees and candidate committees which are funded by business interest committees, which are themselves funded by big mega-donors, big corporations, and smaller businesses. The next question: how do they all spend their money? A quick glance at the top payees at suggests that the majority of the money goes to political consultant firms. For instance, , $225,000 of the $275,000 the Yes on A committee spent went to BMWL Consulting.

And Yes on A is not alone. BMWL is the top payee for campaign funds in the city, raking in over $600,000. One might say they are the heart of the influence network, taking in a pool of money and dispensing out mailings, flyers, advertisements and whatever else is needed for their clients. Besides the Yes on A committee, their clients include No on C and the aforementioned more general business partnerships BOMA and the Golden Gate Restaraunt Association (GGRA).

What does it all mean? Were ‘business interests’ really out to get Chris Daly? Was Rob Black an innocent as these business interests thrashed his opponent? Are Hellman and Fisher running San Francisco?

Not sure, but hopefully this installment in our little study will at least shed some light on the political landscape. For more information, one can check the site, as well as, a wikipedia-like directory of San Francisco politicos.

Money can and can’t buy love: SF Supervisor candidate spends $250,000 and loses, top spending BOE candidates win

Running for office is expensive in SF. A board of supervisor candidate (dist.4), Doug Chan, spent over $250,000 and lost. Other supervisor candidates are in the six figures as well. Two Board of Education candidates spent over $30,000 and won. Note that these figures don’t include money spent by ‘independent’ committes, such as SOS, who reportedly have spent thousands to get Chris Daly out of office (SOS has reported only $7000 in contributions, to ‘Citizen’s For Reform Leadership’ #1,#2,#3,#4,#5 and #6.).

Chan’s figure is quite interesting given that:

  1. he lost,
  2. A few weeks ago, the Chronicle published an article, ‘$100,000 grubsteak’, detailing the big spending of his opponent Janryn Mak.
  3. the Chronicle endorsed Mr. Chan, and
  4. Mak ended up spending over $100,000 less than Chan and still lost (perhaps due to the Chronicle article). Ron Dudum, the projected winner, spent less than either by a large margin.

Here’s the totals that have been reported, as shown on today and verified at the San Francisco Ethics Commission. Projected winners have a *.

District 2:
Alioto-Pier $138,550 *
District 4:
Chan $261,586
Mak $141,572
Dudum $80,924 *
Jew $84,769
District 6:
Daly $150,450 *
Black $116,653

District 8
Dufty $110,851 *
Rossenthal $45,226
District 10
Maxwell $77,805 *

Board of Education

Mendoza $36,054 *
Jane Kim $33,804 *
Bayard Fong, $33,413
Bob Twomey $21,294
Mauricio Vela $8,145
Dan Kelly $5,105
Kim-Shree Maufus (no reports) *