BREAKING: Group Starts Petition to Investigate Jed York and 49ers for Dark Money Spending for No on Measure C Campaign

By Robert Haugh

So far, it’s not been a good month for 49ers owner Jed York. The 49ers lost the Super Bowl on February 2. 

It’s gotten worse since then.

City Clerk Hosam Haggag sent him and other 49ers executives a warning letter that made them disclose that they were spending money in Santa Clara against Measure C. 

They’re being investigated by the City for violating the Dark Money Ordinance. Whoops.

Now, Stand Up for Santa Clara (SUFSC), is asking District Attorney Jeff Rosen and the California Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate. Wow. 

SUFSC successfully fought the 49ers’ effort to take over the Youth Soccer Park. They have a strong following in Santa Clara.

Here’s a link to the petition that’s on

The team is spending over $300,000 to buy a Santa Clara city election — and they tried to do it anonymously. They hid the money until the City Clerk caught them. They’re opposing Measure C because they don’t want Santa Clarans to create council districts — a move that’ll make it harder for them to control the Council.

Please sign this petition to support investigations by state and local authorities that will uncover and stop the 49ers’ dark money spending in Santa Clara elections.

SUFSC also created a commercial that is making the rounds on social media. It’s pretty well done and funny (unless you’re  Jed York). Here’s the link.

49ers and No on C

We haven’t seen the No on Measure C commercial. There’s no website for the campaign and the commercial is not on YouTube. That looks kind of suspicious. Maybe they need more than $300,000 to create a website.

But we’ve heard from residents who have seen the commercial. They say it’s confusing and looks amateurish. 


  1. The December poll by the 49ers was for their use. Untill such time that the data was released to the NO ON C committee they were not required to report the expense. It appears they complied with the law.
    Ed Richards

  2. Uhh. Richard. Your conclusion that should Measure C fail the City will revert to at large Council elections is 100% false. Where you got such bs is beyond me. Wherever you think you did, or whatever you think the source is, is hokum.
    Why? To make it easy for all, I’ll link the Court’s Statement of Decision and Judgment and even the City’s cover memo. I trust you agree, the Court filing is the proverbial Bible here. Right? It’s a simple, easy clear read. Nowhere does the official document expressly nor impliedly even suggest any such reversion. See, 9:1-21. If you’re offering that, “Well, Bessie, the judge’s table only runs through the 2020 election so I guess we go at large after that. What ya think”?
    That’s decidedly not how it works!
    The court assumed (astonishingly incorrectly, It seems) you got the idea that after laying out 2018 and 2020 seats to be up for elections, you could extrapolate that all succeeding two year cycles would follow the same rotation.
    I guess you and whoever is writing this malarkey missed it. Oy vey.
    Look, the only at large seat in the order is the Mayor’s.
    Now that we’ve disposed of that diversion, let’s remember what’s a stake here. Measure C is intentionally and illegally discriminatory to minority groups in Santa Clara, both in its creation and application.
    You would have thought the City would have learned it’s lesson after residents got whacked many of millions in Court. Yet within a short time after the Court’s decision, the City Council formed a Charter Committee composed of (wait for it), six white people and one Asian. Repeat those last two sentences to yourself and let that sink in. Unsurprisingly, instead of simply adopting the court mandated six districts the white people’s committee reduced to three (the lone Asian, Suds Jain along with Christine Kolterman, voting “no”). Thereby, the Committee guaranteed elections (vs six districts ordered by the court) would be more expensive for candidates, decrease those willing and having the wherewithal to run, increasing the likelihood of special interest and dark money and, most importantly, making it much more unlikely a minority candidate (eg 40.1% of city residents are Asian) will be elected to Council.
    There’s simply no reason to support Measure C other than a belief that minorities should be excluded from elected office. Sadly, there is no other conclusion.

  3. Vote Yes on Measure C to have 3 districts, 2 council members per district.

    Vote No on Measure C and revert back to at-large by seat number.

    Please see mailer from City Attorney, Brian Doyle.

    Facts matter.

Leave a Reply