San Francisco Democratic Party Chair Nancy Tung’s officeholder account received $10,000 from billionaire tech investor Chris Larsen on Aug. 6, roughly two weeks before she used that account to purchase a $347 Frontier Airlines ticket to Atlanta.
City records show the ticket was purchased on Aug. 19, destination: Flock Safety‘s Flock Forward conference, which barred journalists, citing privacy concerns involving attendees. Tung said Flock invited her to speak as party chair about San Francisco’s public-safety efforts, and that attending was party-related business.
On Aug. 26, Tung blocked a resolution authored by Democratic Party board member Gordon Mar from appearing on the party’s regular meeting agenda. The resolution called for additional restrictions on how Flock license-plate-reader data is accessed and retained.
Tung said the resolution contained factual errors and that the chair’s consent is required before any resolution reaches the agenda. She denied that Larsen’s donation or Flock’s conference invitation influenced her decision.
Board Members, Disclosure, and the Recusal Question
Two board members with direct ties to Flock Safety remained involved in the dispute without disclosing those connections, according to Mar.
Lily Ho previously served as a public-affairs manager for Flock’s western U.S. operations. Trevor Chandler is a current Flock employee. Mar argued that both should have recused themselves or disclosed their connections during the dispute over his resolution.
Tung told the SF Standard that she and Ho withheld the original vote because of factual problems in Mar’s resolution, not because of any relationship with Flock. That explanation drew a direct rebuttal from Mar.
The donation and conference trip made Tung’s actions “even more troubling,” he said, arguing the financial relationship created an appearance that she had a personal interest in preventing a critical vote. That characterization is Mar’s allegation; it does not establish that the donation directed Tung’s conduct.
What Followed
After blocking the resolution in August, Tung later placed it on the agenda, where it failed, and then co-authored a separate resolution supporting the technology.
Tung placed Mar’s resolution on the agenda roughly one month later, and it failed. A separate resolution co-authored by Tung, which praised San Francisco’s use of automated license-plate-reader technology, was subsequently approved by the party. That sequence reflects Tung’s public policy position: she supports the technology that Mar sought to restrict.
Larsen’s Broader Surveillance Spending
Larsen’s financial involvement in San Francisco police surveillance extends well beyond the $10,000 donation to Tung’s officeholder account.
The SF Standard has attributed roughly $12 million in contributions from Larsen to SFPD surveillance efforts. Separate reporting has described a $9.4 million Larsen-backed package tied to the department’s Real-Time Investigation Center. The two figures may reflect different accounting periods or definitions of “surveillance efforts” and should not be treated as equivalent without reviewing the underlying records.
The Surveillance Stakes
San Francisco’s Flock system has drawn scrutiny over the volume of outside-agency access and findings of improper searches.
San Francisco’s Flock database was accessed 1.6 million times by out-of-state agencies, according to the SF Standard. Mission Local later reported audit findings involving improper searches of that data.
Supporters of automated license-plate readers point to their role in locating stolen vehicles and finding missing people, benefits that police and supporters have cited publicly. Critics focus on data-retention periods, access controls, and the risk that records collected for public safety could be repurposed for immigration enforcement or other uses beyond their original scope.
A Governance Question Without a Clear Answer
The dispute has surfaced an unresolved structural question about how political parties should manage financial relationships and policy votes.
The San Francisco Democratic Party’s conflict-of-interest rules primarily address contract votes, not resolutions, leaving the question of perceived impartiality in a less defined area. Whether the party should adopt formal recusal and disclosure requirements for policy votes involving vendors connected to its members remains an open question.
