SF May Double Campaign Donation Limits to Keep Pace with Inflation

The Facts

San Francisco's Ethics Commission is proposing to double individual campaign donation limits from $500 to $1,000 for the first time since the 1980s, according to Marshall Jones at The Standard. The commission will vote on the proposal at its September 9 meeting, with implementation targeting the 2027 election cycle if approved.

The Context

The current $500 limit was originally established in 1973, raised to $750 in 1981 and $1,000 in 1983, then reduced back to $500 in 1986 and has remained unchanged for nearly four decades. If the limit had kept pace with inflation since 1973, it would now be approximately $3,640 in 2025 dollars, making the proposed $1,000 cap actually quite modest compared to what full inflation adjustments would warrant.

San Francisco's campaign finance system has created significant imbalances as donation limits stagnated while costs increased dramatically over decades. The frozen contribution limits have pushed more political activity toward independent expenditure committees and super PACs, which face no donation restrictions but are subject to stricter disclosure requirements than candidate committees.

Critics argue the higher limits will benefit wealthy candidates and donors, but supporters contend that outdated limits have already driven wealthy interests toward less transparent vehicles. The proposal comes as campaign costs have risen substantially—mailers that cost $15,000 in 2011 now cost over $25,000.

The GrowSF Take

This long-overdue adjustment makes perfect sense. Donation limits that fail to keep pace with inflation for over 50 years become effectively more restrictive over time, pushing political activity toward less transparent channels like independent expenditure committees.

We support this change even though it may reduce the relative influence of organizations like GrowSF. Transparent, accountable campaign contributions directly to candidates are far preferable to the current system that forces political activity through super PACs and independent expenditure committees with weaker disclosure requirements.

Good governance requires updating outdated rules to reflect economic reality, not clinging to arbitrary limits that no longer serve their intended purpose.