The SF Ethics Commission found that Mark Farrell’s 2024 mayoral campaign failed to report certain payments, misreported spending, and improperly documented some donations — but still “substantially complied” with the law, and the case has been referred to the commission's enforcement division.

As Mission Local reports, the San Francisco Ethics Commission released the results of an audit Monday, which found several lapses in Mark Farrell’s 2024 mayoral campaign filings from January 1 through Dec. 31, 2024.

In about 12% of sampled cases, which totaled $698,476, the campaign failed to report expenses such as office supplies and campaign flyers, as Mission Local reports. Auditors also found that the campaign lacked “any” records for roughly 9% of sampled expenses, totaling $6,898 for items like dinners, coffee, and consulting costs, and recorded 8.3% of expenses in the wrong reporting period.

The campaign filings also contained incomplete information for 215 donors — about 7.6% of contributors — including missing names or addresses, per Mission Local. Additionally, the campaign paid $556,310 to advertising firm Canal Partners Media, but it failed to disclose information about the agencies and subcontractors hired by the firm for the campaign’s ads.  

Per Mission Local, the audits of campaigns for Aaron Peskin and London Breed also found violations, though Farrell’s campaign had the most “material” issues.

“These findings represent instances of noncompliance that Auditors determined to be significant,” stated the audit, based on the “frequency” and “significance of the dollar amount” of the transactions in question.

The findings come after ethics issues that surfaced during the 2024 race involving financial overlap between Farrell’s mayoral committee and a 2024 campaign supporting San Francisco Proposition D, as SFist reported at the time. The Chronicle broke the news in August of 2024 that the Yes on D committee was paying roughly half the rent for Farrell’s West Portal campaign headquarters, even though the office did not appear to be doing work related to the ballot measure effort.

The two committees also shared payroll expenses, and several Proposition D mailers appeared to double as campaign materials promoting Farrell’s mayoral bid, per SFist. This raised concerns because ballot measure committees can accept unlimited donations, while candidates for city office are limited to $500 per donor.

In October 2024, as Mission Local and the Chronicle reported at the time, Farrell reached a settlement with the Ethics Commission and agreed to pay $108,000 for illegally sharing funds between the Proposition D committee and his mayoral campaign. Issued just days before the November 5, 2024 election, the penalty was the largest in the commission’s history, per SFist.

Despite heavy spending supporting both Farrell and Proposition D, Proposition D failed by 13 points, and Farrell finished fourth in the mayoral race, as SFist reported.

As SFist reported in January 2025, two of the main groups backing those efforts — TogetherSF and Neighbors for a Better San Francisco — later announced plans to merge after spending more than $10 million on the failed campaign and ballot measure effort. Per SFist, during the race, then-mayor London Breed withdrew from a debate hosted by TogetherSF, accusing the group of favoring Farrell, while others also raised concerns about possible coordination between the organization and the campaign.

Based on data from the ethics commission, Farrell ultimately raised about $5.45 million, which was roughly comparable to Breed’s $5.56 million, per Mission Local, but far behind the $17.21 million backing Daniel Lurie.

As Mission Local reports, the audit is being referred to the commission’s enforcement team, where it may be investigated further or receive “enforcement action if warranted,” resulting in a potential fine.

Previously: Mark Farrell Hit With Largest Ethics Fine In City History Over Commingling of Campaign Funds With Prop D

Image: Mark Farrell/Facebook