A trio of self-funding candidates are pouring their own money into state and local races, banking on the idea that voters are fed up enough with the status quo to hand the reins to someone who can write their own campaign checks. And honestly? The bet isn't crazy. San Francisco's political establishment has earned its credibility problem the old-fashioned way: years of mismanagement, ballooning budgets, and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge when things aren't working.

But let's not confuse "rich enough to self-fund" with "qualified to govern." The ability to bankroll a campaign is not evidence of competence — it's evidence of a bank account. Voters should be asking harder questions: What's the actual policy platform? What's the plan for the budget? Where do you stand on public safety, housing, and the hundred other crises this city can't seem to solve?

The established candidates aren't exactly lighting the world on fire either. As one local put it, "None of the candidates are ideal and have their heap of problems." That about sums up the mood. The progressive lane is fractured, with candidates supposedly carrying the progressive banner failing to even consolidate progressive voters. Meanwhile, moderates and liberals are coalescing around familiar names more out of exhaustion than enthusiasm.

Here's what concerns us at The Dissent: self-funded campaigns reduce accountability. When your donors are... you, there's no coalition to answer to, no grassroots base keeping you honest. You answer to yourself and your own interests. In a city already plagued by governance that feels disconnected from everyday residents, that's not a feature — it's a bug.

Wealth shouldn't disqualify anyone from running. But it shouldn't qualify them either. San Francisco deserves candidates who earn votes with ideas, not just outspend the competition into submission. We've tried letting the well-connected run this city unchecked. How's that working out?