San Francisco voters, long assumed to be a reliable bloc for progressive economic experiments, just rejected a high-profile union-backed tax on executive payand did so by a decisive margin.
According to RedState, Measure D, branded the "Overpaid CEO Tax," failed 53.64 percent to 46.36 percent, as reported by the San Francisco Department of Elections. The proposal would have expanded the citys existing CEO pay ratio tax, which already penalizes large companies when a top executive earns more than 100 times the median worker, by comparing executive compensation to a companys entire national workforce rather than just its San Francisco employees, while simultaneously hiking tax rates.
Supporters of Measure D claimed the new levy would generate between $250 million and $300 million annually for city services, a familiar progressive promise that more taxation would somehow solve deep-rooted structural problems. Yet the citys own analysis projected the measure would cost roughly 940 jobs, a concrete figure that appeared to cut through the rhetoric in a city already bleeding employers to lower-tax, pro-business jurisdictions like Austin and Miami.
Earlier this year, polling suggested 60 percent of San Franciscans backed the measure, and the political establishment lined up behind it. Nancy Pelosi endorsed it, and a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors supported it, but once voters were confronted with the projected job losses, enthusiasm for another punitive tax on employers evaporated.
Mayor Daniel Lurie opposed the measure, warning that it would undermine the citys fragile economic recovery and send yet another hostile signal to job creators. Tech leaders and business groups rallied against it, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin and DoorDash co-founder Tony Xu, who each poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the opposition effort, joined by Chris Larsen, Mike Moritz, and companies such as Williams-Sonoma, Visa, and Meta, bringing total opposition spending to about $7 million.
Chris Larsen, co-founder of Ripple and a major Democratic donor who helped bankroll the No campaign, framed the result as a demand for practical governance rather than ideological crusades. "San Franciscans want real solutions to the affordability crisis facing our city, and they want those solutions built through partnership, not conflict," Larsen said, underscoring that even prominent figures on the left are wary of policies that punish employers instead of fostering growth.
Union leaders, however, quickly blamed the defeat on corporate influence rather than their own overreach. They brushed aside the citys job-loss projections, the exodus of employers, and their own decision to reject a compromise that would have raised $100 million to $150 million, ignore Luries warnings, and rush the measure onto the ballot just two days before the filing deadline, insisting instead that billionaires did itand, predictably, invoking Donald Trump.
Scott Mann, spokesperson for the SEIU-backed pro-D campaign, cast the outcome as a betrayal by city leadership. "A sad day for San Francisco when Mayor Lurie partnered with billionaires and corporations who received massive tax cuts from the Trump administration," Mann said, leaning on national partisan talking points rather than addressing local economic realities.
This is the same city that recalled progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin, ousted three school board members, and elected Lurie on a mandate to restore order and competence. For three years, San Francisco voters have been signaling fatigue with hard-left governance that prioritizes symbolism over safety, affordability, and economic vitality, and Tuesdays vote was simply the latest expression of that shift.
Business groups are already treating the result as a blueprint for defeating a similar statewide billionaire tax that SEIU is pushing for the November ballot. "Eat the rich" may poll well as an abstract slogan, but when voters are presented with specific job-loss numbers and the prospect of further economic decline in their own communities, the appetite for class-warfare taxation appears to diminish rapidly.
San Franciscos underlying problems remain severe: homelessness, crime, and rows of empty storefronts did not vanish with one ballot measure. Lurie himself captured the stakes succinctly, saying, "Voters recognize that our recovery depends on creating opportunity through jobs, thriving small businesses and attracting investment, not making it harder for employers to grow here."
Sacramento now faces a statewide version of this battle in November, with unions again pushing aggressive tax hikes under the guise of fairness. Having walked away from a reasonable compromise in San Francisco and lost decisively, organized labor has provided a cautionary tale that lawmakers and voters across California would be wise to remember.
Login