Let's start with District 4, where Supervisor Alan Wong has amassed roughly $540,000 in backing, with a significant chunk flowing from the same wealthy allies orbiting Mayor Daniel Lurie's political universe. His rival, Natalie Gee, is actually running neck-and-neck in direct fundraising — money raised from, you know, actual people writing actual checks. But she's getting crushed on the third-party PAC front. It's a familiar story in San Francisco politics: the candidate with the grassroots hustle gets outgunned by the candidate with the institutional machine.

Over in District 2, it's even more staggering. Supervisor Stephen Sherrill has over $1 million backing his race, again with much of it coming from PACs. A million dollars. For a district supervisor seat. Let that sink in.

Here's the thing: we're not naive. Money in politics isn't new. But the sheer scale of outside spending in these races should concern anyone who believes their supervisor should answer to constituents rather than donor networks. When PACs dump six and seven figures into hyper-local races, it raises an obvious question: what do those donors expect in return?

As one SF resident put it bluntly in an online discussion about city spending accountability, what we really need is "a good audit to make sure the money is going where it should and weeding out those abusing the system... instead of blindly adding more" to the pile. Amen.

San Francisco already has a trust deficit when it comes to governance. Our budget balloons, our services sputter, and our officials too often seem beholden to interests that don't live anywhere near the districts they're shaping. Flooding local races with PAC money only widens that gap.

Voters in Districts 2 and 4 deserve to know exactly who's funding their next supervisor — and why. Follow the money. It rarely lies.