The inquiry comes after two of Breed's own close allies accused her of a quid pro quo arrangement — swapping a board seat for a post-mayoral landing pad at the Bloomberg organization. The allegations are serious: trading public appointments for personal career advancement is textbook public corruption, the kind of thing that's supposed to land people in federal court.

As one SF resident put it: "She's never been indicted even though the rest of her cronies have been indicted, convicted, and sentenced already. We'll see what happens next." Indeed, the orbit around Breed has produced a remarkable number of legal problems for people who aren't named London Breed. Whether that's luck, skill, or a federal investigation that just hadn't gotten around to her yet remains an open question.

There's also an ironic wrinkle worth noting: Breed doesn't actually appear to have landed a Bloomberg job. As one local observer wryly noted, "much like Ed Lee, there'll be the problem where she didn't end up with a Bloomberg job." Which raises an interesting legal and philosophical question — is it still corruption if you traded something of public value and didn't even get your end of the deal?

Let's be clear about what matters here. San Francisco has an endemic corruption problem. From Mohammed Nuru to Harlan Kelly to the parade of fixers and middlemen who've cycled through federal court in recent years, the pattern is unmistakable: City Hall has operated like a favor factory where public resources are currency for personal enrichment.

We don't prejudge outcomes. An inquiry isn't an indictment. But San Franciscans deserve a government where board seats go to qualified candidates — not to whoever greases the right career path. If the feds can follow the evidence wherever it leads, without political interference from any direction, that's a win for accountability. And accountability, in this town, has been in desperately short supply.