By Dr. Julianne Malveaux

Editorial

District 10 is not for sale. Its residents are not inventory. Its supervisor’s seat should not become a luxury purchase for someone wealthy enough to overwhelm a neighborhood election.

Yet cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen put $500,000 into an outside political committee supporting Theo Ellington for San Francisco’s District 10 supervisor seat. Then he added another $40,000. Apparently, half a million dollars was not enough. Mission Local reported the additional contribution on September 29, bringing Larsen’s reported backing of the committee to $540,000.

The committee calls itself “From the Neighborhood, for the City, Supporting Theo Ellington for Supervisor 2026.” From the neighborhood? The name suggests neighbors pooling modest contributions to make their voices heard. Instead, a billionaire supplies an extraordinary sum to promote his preferred candidate. Putting “neighborhood” in the name does not make billionaire financing grassroots democracy.

Larsen, a co-founder of Ripple, is entitled to a political opinion. He is entitled to support a candidate. Residents are equally entitled to ask why his opinion should arrive with an amplifier powerful enough to overwhelm their voices.

And what does he expect for his money?

Ellington says he will not be beholden to Larsen. That assurance strains credulity. Even the wealthiest people do not throw half a million dollars around like confetti. I regard this as a political investment. Residents deserve to know what policies Larsen hopes that investment will advance—and where Ellington would tell him no.

San Francisco limits direct contributions to a city candidate to $500 per contributor per election. Independent election spending, however, is not capped. An outside committee can raise enormous sums and spend to support a candidate, provided it does not coordinate with that candidate’s campaign. Larsen’s original contribution was 1,000 times the direct contribution limit.

That distinction matters. The money did not go into Ellington’s campaign account, and the contribution alone does not establish an unlawful arrangement. But separate accounts do not erase concentrated political power. Legal permission does not settle the question of democratic fairness.

Money buys advertising, mailers, consultants and paid organizing. It buys repetition. A resident may have the better argument and a lifetime of neighborhood knowledge. A billionaire can finance the machinery that makes his preferred argument difficult to escape.

Larsen has offered an explanation for his support. He told Mission Local that Ellington was “cut from the same cloth” as Mayor Daniel Lurie and that he expected cooperation with the mayor. Lurie has endorsed Ellington.

So is Larsen helping District 10 choose a representative—or helping the mayor secure an ally?

There is nothing inherently wrong with a supervisor working with a mayor. The test comes when the mayor’s priorities conflict with the district’s. Cooperation cannot become capitulation. District 10 deserves a supervisor prepared to say no when City Hall’s agenda fails its residents.

The district is choosing a successor to term-limited Supervisor Shamann Walton. Its neighborhoods—including Bayview-Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, Dogpatch and Potrero Hill—face consequential decisions about housing, development, public services and the contaminated Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

These decisions concern land, wealth and the right to remain. Who gains income? Who gains assets? Who can afford to stay? Who bears the environmental costs? Who receives promises while somebody else receives profits?

“Investment” is an attractive word. But a development can increase land values without improving the security of the people living nearby. A campaign can promise opportunity without explaining how working families will obtain it.

As an economist, I look beyond the size of an investment to the distribution of its benefits. As a Black woman, I want to know whether the people who helped build this community will have a place in its future.

Ellington deserves to have his response included. He told Mission Local that he did not request Larsen’s contribution and would not be influenced by it. Of outside groups supporting him, he said, “They do not speak for me, or our campaign.”

Then speak for yourself. Tell residents where you disagree with Larsen. Tell them which policies you would oppose despite his financial support. Tell them whether you welcome this extraordinary spending—and whether you would publicly ask the committee to stop.

At a September 30 forum, Ellington indicated support for restricting billionaire funding of local political action committees. He also indicated that he would oppose renewing the police department’s contract with Flock, the license-plate surveillance company, and support banning data centers. Those positions deserve attention. They also deserve follow-through.

What restrictions would he pursue? How would he implement them? What would he do when powerful supporters object? Voters need commitments specific enough to measure after the election.

Every candidate should face the same questions. Who finances your political support? Whose interests do you advance? When would you oppose a mayor, a developer or a wealthy supporter to protect district residents?

A billionaire can finance a campaign message. He cannot confer a community mandate. That belongs to the voters.

Ellington may well be good people. But from where I sit, billionaire backing on this scale is a disqualifier. His assurances of independence must contend with $540,000 spent to help put him in office.

District 10 is not for sale. Its residents should never have to outbid a billionaire to be heard.

Dr. Julianne Malveaux

Economist/Author/Educator

Subscribe to my newsletter, The Malveaux Monitor.