Printer-friendly PDF file

March 2022 Cover lllustrationMarch 18, 2022

Haney’s Deceptive Barack Obama Endorsement
Vote for Campos, Not Haney, for Assembly April 19

by Patrick Monette-Shaw

About the time you read this, San Francisco’s Department of Elections will have already put your mail-in ballot for the April 19 Assembly run-off election into U.S. mail, so keep an eye out for it.  Be sure to return your ballot promptly so special interests don’t steal this election from San Francisco voters!

As expected, David Campos and Matt Haney advanced following the special February 15 primary election and will face off in the April run-off election  As I and political observers predicted, Ms. Selby and Mr. Mahmood were knocked out of contention and didn’t advance to the run-off.

Unqualified Candidates Vanquished

As I wrote in January’s Westside Observer on January 10, neither Selby or Mahmood had ever held elected office to a legislative body, and neither had legislative track records under their belts.  Most voters consider the lack of previous legislative office and lack of a legislative record as non-starters, disqualifying them from serious consideration due to lack of relevant job experience.

Selby raised $114,133 for her election through February 24, 2022 and obtained 5,261 votes (5.61%) of the 93,778 ballots cast by East Side voters eligible to vote in Assembly District 17.  

By contrast, Mahmood raised $947,849, 58% of which he had contributed to himself ($550,000) trying to buy himself an elected seat in government.  The $947,849 Mahmood raised was 46% higher than the $649,000 voluntary spending cap limit California’s FPPC had set for 2021–2022 for primary elections, which Matt Haney and David Campos had agreed to.

Mahmood did snag 20,895 votes (22.3%) of the 93,778 ballots cast by East Side voters eligible to vote in the February 15  primary election.  He more than likely received substantial votes from YIMBY members in AD-17, since both California YIMBY and YIMBY Action endorsed Mahmood, given their focus on advocating for market-rate housing, not affordable housing and their misguided belief affordable housing will eventually “trickle down.”  YIMBY Action has asserted its e-mail list numbers around 10,000 people, many of whom live in AD-17 and were urged to vote for Mahmood.

Notably, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article showing the breakouts of which precincts each of the four candidates had won on February 15.  The map shows Mahmood snagged votes primarily in precincts in or adjacent to the wealthy Pacific Heights and Dogpatch/Central Waterfront precincts, but few other precincts on the East Side of the City.

Mahmood’s hubris involved his apparent belief he could just buy himself an elected legislative seat, rather than having to walk the walk in becoming a politician from the ground up, one election at a time to develop an historical legislative track record to put before voters for consideration of his qualifications to serve.

Pull Quote 1Qualified Candidates Advance

It has largely gone unreported that the February 15 primary resulted in a mere difference of less than eight-tenths of one-percent of votes between the two unvanquished candidates, Campos and Haney.  Haney finished with 36.44% of the 93,778 ballots cast during the AD-17 primary Special election, and Campos finished with 35.67%. 

That’s a difference of just 0.77%.  Haney garnered 34,174 votes compared to Campos’ 33,448 votes — a difference of only 726 votes.  With Selby and Mahmood now out of the picture, the April 19 run-off election couldn’t be a tighter race.
The Chronicle map of precincts noted above shows the of East Side voters, Campos largely prevailed in the Mission District, Excelsior, Bayview-Hunters Point, Glen Park, and Forest Hill neighborhoods, and other precincts, including parts of Matt Haney’s own Tenderloin precinct.  Haney largely prevailed in other East Side precincts.  But of course, there was crossover between voters in the same precincts.

Now it will come down to which candidate is viewed as more credible, and their ability to turn out voters.  Unfortunately, Bilal Mahmood wound up endorsing Matt Haney, as did YIMBY action, both putting their thumbs on the scale.

Notably, on Tuesday, March 15 Campos announced Ms. Selby has now endorsed and is supporting him in the April 19 run-off election.

Campaign Fundraising

Although the voluntary spending cap limit for the February 15 primary was $649,000 that Haney and Campos had agreed to, California’s FPPC increases the voluntary spending cap limit for 2021–2022 for run-off and general elections to $1,135,000 ($1.135 million).  As of March 11, Haney’s fundraising committee had already raised more than the $1.135 million voluntary spending cap for the April 19 run-off election, but will probably keep raising additional contributions he can roll over to the June 7 primary and November 2022 general elections for a full Assembly term. 

Pull Quote 2Indeed, the San Francisco Standard reported on February 1 prior to the February 15 special election primary that Haney admitted he had already rolled over $200,000 from his Recipient Committee ID #1441330 he set up for the June 7 primary and November 2022 general election cycle to his Recipient Committee ID #1442544 he set up for the February 15 primary and April 19 run-off elections.

Haney claims he has strong grassroots donor support, and claimed in a press release that he will not accept corporate PAC (political action committee) donations.  But reality seems to have bitten him in his rear end, since both claims appear to be wishful thinking.

Overall Contributions by Dollar Amounts

Campaign contribution data for the AD-17 Assembly election posted on the Secretary of State’s web site as of March 11 reveals interesting information about both the Haney and Campos campaigns.  Various campaign contribution amount ranges are of interest to voters.

Table 1:  Campaign Contributions, as of March 11, 2022

Table 1

Despite Haney’s claim he has strong grassroots support, Table 1 illustrates several key take-aways:

Ovrerall Donations By Donor Category

The campaign contribution data posted on the Secretary of State’s web site sheds light on the types of donors contributing to each candidate, and illuminates more information of interest to voters.

The FPPC Forms 460’s that every campaign is required to file with the Secretary of State has to categorize each donor as being from either “Individuals,” “Committees,” “Other,” “Political Parties,” or “Small Contributor Committees.”  Those categories are inexplicably reported only on the Form 460’s, but not reported or included on other mandatory reporting forms.  Unfortunately, the Form 460’s on the Secretary of State’s web site are a hot mess:  They’re not only difficult to find and download, they also have not been “data scrubbed” to eliminate duplicate donations from a single donor on a single date across subsequent Form 460’s submitted.  So, the Form 460’s are highly unreliable, extremely time-consuming to analyze without introducing errors, and beyond time constraints of citizen journalists like me.

Instead of relying on the Form 460’s, the donor categories shown in Table 2 were a classification system developed by this author, which were clearly evident by the name of the individual donors in the Secretary of States data.

Table 2:  Donor Category, as of March 11, 2022

Table 2

Table 2 shows the major types of donor categories.  Of interest:

Candidate Endorsements

Endorsements posted on each candidate’s web site as of March 10 illustrate what level of key support they have — beyond campaign donations — and from whom, to help voters assess how to cast their votes.  As always, the shifting data is instructive.

Table 3:  Endorsements, as of March 10, 2022

Table 3

Table 3 illustrates, in part, the level of endorsements from elected officials, organizations, and individuals and community leaders who ostensibly choose which given candidate better “plays well with others” when deciding whom to endorse. 

Pull Quote 9Interestingly:

Between March 1 and March 10, Haney posted just 7 additional endorsements, while Campos posted 50 additional endorsements, to their respective campaign web sites.

Pull Quote 13Why Haney Is the Wrong Choice

There are a number of reasons why Haney is the wrong choice to represent those of us who live in AD-17. 

First, as the Westside Observer reported on January 10, Haney was sworn in to represent San Francisco District 6 on the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 2019.  At the point he announced he was running for State Assembly, he had served barely two-and-a-half years as a City Supervisor, raising a question of whether he is using his incomplete first four-year term on the Board of Supervisors as a steppingstone to the State Assembly.

As we reported on January 10, an important reason not to vote for Haney in the Assembly run-off election is that if he is elected to the Assembly, Mayor Breed will appoint a temporary replacement to serve out the remainder of Haney’s first term as D-6 Supervisor, disenfranchising and depriving D-6 voters of their choice and voice in who they want representing them at City Hall. 

But there’s much more.

Pull Quote 14Haney’s Petty Lawsuit Over Campos’ Ballot Designation

Haney damaged any remaining reservoir of credibility he had from which to draw when he engaged in a petty lawsuit challenging Campos’ official occupation designation on the ballot.  It’s clearly the least-important issue voters face in the run-off election, and is of scant interest to voters.  Haney spent an unknown amount of money mounting and waging his lawsuit in a misguided hope of winning over a tiny number of voters in what will be a very tight election.

Many view Haney’s lawsuit as part of an orchestrated smear campaign to link Campos to District Attorney Chesa Boudin in a misguided guilt-by-association attempt to encourage voters not to vote for Campos.

Although Haney had first filed an administrative complaint with California Secretary of State Shirley Weber over this non-issue, after Weber conducted an investigation, she allowed Campos to list “civil rights attorney” as his occupation on the February 15 primary ballot.  Unhappy, Haney — knowing there had been a difference of just 726 votes between he and Campos in the February 15 primary election — pressed ahead and filed a formal Superior Court lawsuit against Ms. Weber on February 24, alleging that Campos was “deliberately attempting to deceive voters.”  Haney’s campaign claimed that there was nowhere else Campos refers to himself as a “civil rights attorney.

That’s hogwash, or pure horse hockey!  Campos had used “civil rights attorney” as his occupation as far back as 2008 when he mounted his first campaign to become a City Supervisor.  Voters who have followed Campos over the past 14 years have long known that Campos prides himself for his civil rights work as an attorney for several decades.

The San Francisco Examiner reported on March 2 that after Haney had complained for months over Campos’ choice to list his occupation as a “civil rights attorney,” a Sacramento Superior Court Judge ruled on March 1 that Campos had to change his occupation on the ballot to “criminal justice administrator.”

Interestingly, despite Haney winning his Superior Court lawsuit, San Francisco’s Department of Elections allowed Campos to use “civil rights attorney” as his occupation in the Voter Information Pamphlet for the April 19 run-off special general election that arrived in San Francisco voter’s mailboxes on March 17.

Pull Quote 15Somewhat ironically, Haney himself appears to be deceiving voters in the Voter Information Pamphlet, in which he asserts he secured record investments in housing, public safety, and small business relief (following the COVID pandemic) as Chair of the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee. 

That’s completely disingenuous:  First, Haney became chairperson of the Budget and Finance Committee on January 10, 2021 replacing former-Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer as Budget chair after she decided not to seek re-election in November 2020.  Haney served as chair of the Budget Committee for just over one year, when Board President Shamann Walton announced new Committee Assignments on February 22, 2022 and removed Haney from both the Budget and Finance Committee and the separate five-member Budget and Appropriations Committee that typically meets only during hearings leading up to adopting the City’s upcoming fiscal year budgets. 

Haney’s candidate statement in the April 19 Voter Guide is deceptive, in part, because it may lead voters to think he’s still Chairperson of the Budget Committee.  He’s not, and no longer serves in any capacity on either Budget committee.

Observers had wondered whether Haney stepped down from the two budget committees in order to free up his time to campaign for assembly elections that will continue into June and then November. 

And second, Haney’s claim he secured “record budget investments” in the three policy areas clearly deceives voters. 

During his one-year stint as Budget Chair, Haney presided over development of a single fiscal year City budget — the July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 fiscal year budget.  Absent detailed fact-checking, knowledgeable observers don’t recall “record budget investment” increases in any of these three policy areas (housing, public safety, and small business relief) in the FY 2021–2022 budget adopted.

Haney’s claim of “record investments” is more like election sloganeering or sheer puffery, rather than actual fact.  While stretching the truth may not be a real crime (unless perhaps you’re named Donald Trump), it’s definitely a deceptive claim to put before voters.

Haney really can’t claim he single-handedly secured those investments, since it takes at least eight supervisors to pass budget allocations and to prevent a mayoral veto.  At best, it’s hyperbole or sheer bluster for any single Supervisor to assert he “secured” these record investments all on his own. 

Pull Quote 16Asked about Haney’s fantastical claim, a long-time and reputable City Hall insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted my impressions are correct and indicated “Haney is full of sh*#” (pardon my source’s use of the vernacular).  Haney seems to be blissfully unaware of just how low his City Hall colleagues regard him.

You can’t miss the irony that Haney claimed Campos was potentially attempting to deceive voters with a choice of occupation to be listed on the ballot, yet Haney is brazen enough to deceive those same voters in the Voter Pamphlet about “record investments.”

Haney’s Allegation Campos Doesn’t “Play Well With Others”

In addition to the discussion above disproving a false allegation in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 20 attributed to Haney that Campos is “not being a good team player” (implying Campos doesn’t “play well with others”), voters should not forget that Campos served on the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) for five years between 2016 and 2021 and was elected and served as DCCC Chair between 2017 and 2021.  Campos is currently one of two Vice Chairs of the California Democratic Party. 

Campos clearly would not have been elected as chair of San Francisco’s DCCC or vice chair of California’s Democratic Party if he isn’t a good team player who knows how to “play well with others.”  And he wouldn’t have his legislative track record developed over his eight years on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors unless he was a good team player.

Pull Quote 17Haney’s P.R Disaster Bashing Campos

Haney appears to be afraid of his own shadow in bashing Campos in the media.  Haney — and independent expenditure committees supporting Haney — have falsely alleged Campos had been responsible for the “Monster in the Mission” battle in 2015 over a proposal by a private developer, Maximus, to build 330 units of housing at 16th and Mission in San Francisco’s Mission District, many of which were proposed to be market-rate housing, not affordable housing.

That was completely false, because the “Monster in the Mission” opponents were community activists, not Campos or the Board of Supervisors being the instigating opponents.

YIMBY members and building and construction trades unions attacked the community activists — who only were Campos’ District constituents coincidentally — as being “anti-housing,” which was ridiculous because the community members were simply “anti-displacement.”  The Mission District has lost 8,000 Latino residents over the past decade; the Mission had been 52% Latino a decade ago but is now down to 40%. 

Pull Quote 18It’s patently unfair — and factually incorrect — to label either those community activists, or Campos, who opposed massive displacement as being anti-housing.  Campos’ only involvement was introducing legislation at the Board of Supervisors to create a temporary moratorium on building more market-rate housing for a short 45-day period, which legislation was never approved by the Board of Supervisors that even then-Supervisor London Breed had supported and had voted for. has provided great reporting about this false allegation against Campos, noting that the 16th and Mission site is now on pace to be fully 100% affordable housing, which hopefully will prevent additional displacement from the Mission.

March 30 Update:  More of Haney’s Hypocrisy Exposed


On March 30, reported an update about Haney’s hypocrisy about the “Monster In the Mission” housing fight.

While Haney has been busy rolling out last-minute attack ads against Campos over a project which sought to impose a 45-day moratorium only on “luxury Pull Quote 33housing” in the Mission, Haney supported Prop I in 2015 and 2016 for the same moratorium.

Basically, Haney and his allies are now shamefully attacking Campos at the last minute before the April 19 run-off election for something Haney also supported at the time, along with Breed.

Haney Is Deceiving Voters on His Housing Record

As the Westside Observer reported in January, Haney has repeatedly claimed he brought 5,000 new housing units to District 6, but has never stratified how many of those units were affordable housing vs. market-rate housing.

Pull Quote 19He’s playing a terrible game of semantics, because he continues to claim that achievement both on his campaign web site, in the Voter Information Pamphlet that arrived in U.S. Mail on March 17, and in a campaign mailer that arrived in voters mailboxes on March 18.

It’s the height of hypocrisy that Haney wrongly claimed Campos was deceiving voters by Campos’ choice of occupation to be listed on the ballot, when it’s obvious Haney is deliberately deceiving voters via his claims about his record creating massive amounts of housing. published a great rejoinder that should — but probably won’t — stop Haney from continuing to make this deceptive claim to voters:  Matt Haney hasn’t built any housing.  He hasn’t created any housing.  The Board of Supervisors don’t build housing.  Private developers build housing.  Per 48Hills

The only role Haney — or any supervisor — has in building housing is voting on appeals of Planning Commission decisions (and working with neighbors and community groups to cut deals to get private development projects approved), changing zoning laws, or organizing for and approving money for affordable housing projects.”  

Haney’s “Grassroote Donations” Deceipt

Speaking of Haney deceiving voters, let’s not forget his campaign web site’s wild claim that he is receiving significant grassroots campaign donations and is running a grassroots campaign.  It’s not clear how Haney and his campaign team define “grassroots.”

Pull Quote 20As discussed involving Table 1 above, 65.3% of total donation amounts to Haney by March 11 were from donations of $4,900 and above, and a paltry 12.6% of his total donation amounts involved $500 or less.  Neither are reflective of broad grassroots support.

Table 2 above illustrates that fully 35.6% of total donation amounts to Haney were from labor unions and labor union PAC’s.  That’s not grassroots support either.   Just 52.1% of Haney’s total donation amounts came from individuals, compared to 83.2% of donations from individuals to Campos.

And finally, when it comes to endorsements on Haney’s web site, he received just 30 endorsements from individuals by March 10, compared to 143 individuals who endorsed Campos.  That’s not grassroots endorsement support.

All of which leads observers to conclude Haney is also deceiving voters about his level of grassroots support.  Haney may not understand that simply claiming something doesn’t make it true.

Haney’s Supporters Advocate for Legislative Carve-Outs

Various of Haney’s supporters have advocated for legislative and policy carve outs, although not directly with Haney.  Still, it should be of concern to voters.

Pull Quote 21Safai’s Proposed Charter Amendment Carve-Out

On January 24, 2022 Supervisor Ahsha Safai (who has endorsed Haney) introduced a Charter Amendment via an Ordinance sponsored only by him — but ostensibly on behalf of Mayor Breed — to place a ballot measure on the June 7, 2022 ballot at the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee purportedly to streamline review of permits for affordable housing.  As has reported, we really don’t need more “streamlining” legislation, since that’s not the main impediment to getting housing projects approved and actually built.

First, Safai’s Charter Amendment contained one provision to increase the definition of “affordable” housing units for households having incomes of up to 140% of Area median income (AMI); that would drastically expand the definition of “affordable” to include allowing a family of four to earn up to $186,500.  How many San Francisco households earn $186,500 annually?

Pull Quote 22Second, Safai’s Charter Amendment contained another provision to enshrine prevailing wages protections for housing construction workers in the City Charter, a provision that was roundly rejected by members of the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee and members of the public who testified against Safai’s Charter change proposal.

It was painfully clear Safai was doing the bidding of the building and construction and laborers’ unions in attempting to add a carve out to include prevailing wage standards in our City Charter, which would have become nearly impossible to remove from the Charter in the future without having to go back to voters to get the provision removed.

Thankfully, Safai’s Charter change measure was tabled and didn’t advance out of the Rules Committee.  It won’t appear on San Francisco’s June 7 municipal ballot, although Safai may try another way to get it placed on a future ballot.

Building and Construction Trade Unions Pressured for Prevailing Wages Carve-Out

Back in 2019, building and construction trade unions — that are now spending heavily to back Haney — succeeded in pressuring MOHCD into a carve out regarding prevailing wage protections for their dues-paying union members.

Pull Quote 23A facsimile of a June 6, 2019 letter from the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) to Larry Mazzola, Jr., president of the San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council (BCTC), shows MOHCD’s then Executive Director, Kate Hartley, sought to allay concerns raised by Mazzola, who is also the Secretary-Treasurer of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 38 in San Francisco.  [Note:  The “facsimile” letter was produced by this author by comparing Hartley’s draft letter to her final version, both acquired under public records requests.]

Mazzola had phoned Hartley about his concerns supporting the $600 million Affordable Housing Bond on San Francisco’s November 2019 ballot.  Mazzola had sought reassurance that MOHCD would support and facilitate union labor to the greatest extent possible on the affordable housing projects.  In Hartley’s first draft of a written reply to Mazzola on May 31, 2019 she noted that on the $310 million 2015 Affordable Housing Bond MOHCD had documented BCTC union participation rates of between 99.25% to 100% on the 2015 Bond projects.  She assured Mazzola that the planned projects for “covered categories” of projects for the 2019 Bond would also include at least 90% BCTC union participation rates.

Mazzola apparently didn’t like Hartley’s first draft, and demanded and obtained changes. 

Pull Quote 24First, Hartley agreed to strike out and remove a reference that some of the 2019 Bond projects might involve (factory built) “modular construction” assembled off site without using BCTC union labor.  That may prevent MOHCD from future consideration of using modular construction for any housing projects, whether for the homeless or low-income households.  It was a huge win for Mazzola, but a huge loss for the rest of us.

As a matter of practice, construction trade unions oppose modular construction precisely because it may not involve paying prevailing wages to their union members. 

Second, although Hartley had assured Mazzola that “existing public housing sites which receive bond funding [would be] be subject to prevailing wage requirements,” Mazzola apparently wanted stronger prevailing wage language, so Hartley added an additional paragraph assuring him that the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements referenced for Covered Work projects would be included in the loan agreements MOHCD executes with affordable housing project developers/ owners.  Mazzola not only prevailed against MOHCD on the prevailing wage issue, the modular housing language also vanished.

Mazzola’s Hatred of Modular Construction

Pull Quote 25Mazzola and the construction trades unions deeply fear modular housing.  Back in March 2021, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article about efforts in San Francisco to use modular construction of housing units for homeless people.  The article reported on a project to build affordable housing for the homeless at 833 Bryant Street across from the former Hall of Justice, which was vigorously opposed by Mazzola and his union.

The Chronicle reported the modular housing project is being built in a factory in Vallejo that contracts with the Carpenters Union of Northern California, faster and cheaper than typical affordable housing projects in San Francisco.  Instead of projects taking six years or longer to construct at an average of $700,000 per unit, the 833 Bryant project will take just three years and average $383,000 per unit.  That shaves off three years to bring affordable housing projects to market in the lease-up stage, and costs 82.8% less per unit.  Who can oppose shaving three years off of desperately-needed housing production?

Imagine how many fewer people wouldn’t be homeless in San Francisco (or statewide throughout California) if we had more modular housing projects for the homeless.  For that matter, how many more San Franciscans could afford to purchase homes, or rent apartments, were there more modular affordable housing projects for everybody else who isn’t actually homeless?

Pull Quote 26No wonder Mayor London Breed may be open to more modular projects, as was Bilal Mahmood in his efforts to win election to Assembly District 19.  The Chronicle reported that even Haney was open to the idea of more modular housing projects.  As far as that goes, YIMBY California and San Francisco’s YIMBY Action should be advocating for more modular housing projects, too, after having endorsed and supported Mahmood during the February 15 primary.

As president of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, Larry Mazzola opposes everything about modular housing, like a money changer in the temple extorting money from San Francisco voters.

Mazzola and his allies want to make sure money they’ve donated to Haney to buy themselves an Assemblyman in Sacramento will prevent modular housing from being utilized to help solve California’s housing shortage crisis.  Haney will soon fold on modular housing, if he knows what’s good for his political career and his campaign donations.

Pull Quote 27The Choice is Clear

As a knowledgeable, prominent, and astute African American friend of mine notes:  “Haney was doing great for a while, especially on Treasure Island, but when he decided to try to jump to the State legislature, he made a hard right turn.”  She meant Haney did a hard right turn from being a progressive to being a moderate, willing to bow to the building and construction trades and laborer unions. 

If Haney wins on April 19, we’ll have another compliant legislator in Sacramento all too eager to restrict local land use decisions and affordable housing projects in San Francisco.

If you want to send another legislator who is “full of sh*#” (using the words of my anonymous City Hall source) to Sacramento, by all means — vote for Haney.

Pull Quote 28Otherwise, if you want a more qualified Assemblyman with a long list of accomplishments and strong grassroots support, cast your vote for Campos as soon as you receive your vote-by-mail ballot!


Monette-Shaw is a columnist for San Francisco’s Westside Observer newspaper, and a member of the California First Amendment Coalition (FAC) and the ACLU.  He operates  Contact him at

March 28 Postscript: “Speaking in Forked Tongue

The Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines talking with a “forked tongue” as:  “Speaking in a dishonest way that is meant to deceive people.”  I’m struck by how that may apply to Matt Haney.

Pull Quote 29Haney’s lawsuit forcing Campos to change his occupation listed on the ballot wrongly asserted Campos was potentially deceiving voters by saying he was a “Civil Rights Attorney.”  But a recent “Haney Housing Plan” flier received in U.S. Mail from his official campaign in the past week didn’t once mention Haney’s occupation listed on the ballot is “[City] Supervisor.”  Instead, the flier notes that Haney is a “tenants’ rights attorney.”  While that may be commendable service, Haney’s pro bono work helping an unknown number of renters with their tenant rights is not his current principal occupation, so is somewhat deceptive.  Haney’s law degree from Stanford Law School in 2010 was in education law, not tenant’s rights law.

Unexplained is why Haney found Campos’ designation in January 2022 as a “Civil Rights Attorney” to be deceptive, but his own designation as a“tenants’ rights attorney” three months later is somehow OK.  Perhaps, if you’re speaking with a forked tongue.

Then there’s a small problem with Board of Supervisor Committee hearings.  When Board President Shamann Walton announced new Board Committee assignments in March 2022 and removed Haney from the two different Budget Committees effective March 10 but implemented in February, Walton kept Haney as a member of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services (PSNS) Committee.

Pull Quote 30Haney was absent from the PSNS Committee meeting on March 24 during a key committee meeting about two critical public health issues, one including two public conservatorship items facing people with mental health issues and are homeless, and a separate issue about the lack of sub-acute skilled nursing facilities in San Francisco resulting in out-of-county patient discharges and legislation to require reporting the out-of-county patient discharge data.

Where was Haney?  Why did he skip this key hearing?

The next day, news surfaced that Campos is polling six percentage points ahead of Haney for the April 19 run-off election.  Despite that potential lead, make sure you return your vote for Campos before April 19!

Haney Deceptively Riding Obama’s Coattails

All along, Haney’s campaign web site has been potentially deceiving voters about an endorsement he received from former president Barack Obama, which wasn’t for election to the State Assembly.  It has been a sleight-of-hand claim all along. 

Pull Quote 31On Monday, March 28 an independent expenditure committee — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3299 PAC — shamelessly began broadcasting a potentially deceptive ad on ABC TV Channel 7, repeating the same claim Haney was endorsed by former president Obama. 

Both Haney’s web site and AFSCME Local 3299’s TV ads are potentially deliberately deceiving voters, for two reasons.

First, Haney’s web site completely eliminates mentioning that Obama had endorsed Haney way back in 2016 — for re-election to San Francisco’s school board, citing Haney’s leadership on issues facing school systems as an education lawyer.

Second, Haney’s web site creatively edited Obama’s verbatim endorsement by removing Obama’s explicit language he was endorsing Haney for the school board to assure students, families, and educators to support Haney’s re-election.  Haney replaced key phrases of Obama’s endorsement using ellipses, which altered the context and scope of Barack’s endorsement. 

Matt is an extraordinary leader, working towards a 21st century school system where all of our children can fulfill their potential,” Obama said in a statement.  “Matt listens to and fights for students, educators, and families.  …  I believe Matt represents the passion, commitment and vision that we need in our elected leaders.”

President Barack H. Obama, November 5, 2016


Pull Quote 32The strike outs shown in red illustrate Haney’s sheer chutzpah in audaciously eliding (omitting) the actual language Obama had used in his 2016 endorsement that was reported at the time in the San Francisco Examiner.  It is clear Obama’s 2016 testimonial was to endorse Haney for election to the school board, not to the Assembly.  Haney is conflating and confounding leadership in education with leadership in legislating, mixing up two distinct skills and abilities.

You have to wonder whether Haney obtained permission from Obama six years after-the-fact to creatively and purposefully edit Obama’s actual endorsement language to coast on Obama’s coattails.  You also have to wonder whether Obama knows Haney is potentially twisting the intent of Obama’s endorsement.

Haney is essentially recycling Obama’s six-year old endorsement to imply Obama is endorsing Haney for 2022 election to California’s state assembly.  Obama has done no such thing.

Independent expenditure committee campaign disclosure reports downloaded from the Secretary of State’s web site on March 29 revealed AFSCME Local 3299 plans expenditures of $531,296 made through March 2 for the purpose of its television ads.  It’s not yet known if AFSCME will spend even more on TV ads through the April 19 run-off election.  Haney must surely be aware AFSCME’s ad may be deceiving voters, however unintentionally.

Although AFSCME’s TV ad does mention Obama’s endorsement was made in 2016 and claims it’s now our turn to support Haney, the ad doesn’t mention at all Obama’s endorsement was for Haney’s election to the school board, so it may deceive voters, whether inadvertently or intentionally. 

Given recent news about the scope of Haney’s misinformation and deceit (including about Obama), voting for Haney would be a mistake.


[Full Disclosure:  I have donated to Mr. Campos’ election campaign for State Assembly.]