Scott Wiener leads money race to succeed Pelosi, but Connie Chan picking up speed 53%

By Kelly Waldron32%

7/16/2026, 7:50:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Quote-first Misdirection, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 15.5% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 1,093 faulty-reasoning hits from 618 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.7% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,385 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.60% of the article peer group.

Scott Wiener continues to pull in the most dollars in the congressional race to succeed Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi  but his opponent, Connie Chan, is quickly gaining momentum. 
Filings released on Wednesday show that in the seven-week reporting period from May 14 to June 30, 2026, Wiener raised $571,000, while Connie Chan, his opponent, raised just over $441,000. 
For Chan, that’s more than double what she raised in the prior period. 
Wiener also improved, raising some 40 percent more than in the prior period. 
Chan’s fundraising boost came after Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi endorsed her campaign about two weeks before the June primary. 
Later that month, Pelosi’s own committee gave $4,000 to Chan’s campaign, and “PAC to the Future,” a committee sponsored by Pelosi, gave $10,000, according to filings. 
“Connie Chan defied conventional wisdom with her strong showing in the June primaries, and we have felt the surge of momentum ever since,” said a spokesperson for Chan’s campaign. 
“Fresh off Scott’s first-place showing in the primary, the campaign was proud to earn the support of over 2,000 new donors this quarter. 
These resources will fuel a winning campaign this November and help send Scott to Congress,” said Joe Arellano, the spokesperson for Wiener’s campaign. 
According to their respective campaigns, Chan has more than 3,000 donors and Wiener has 5,320. 
Additional money has come through to support Chan that is not yet reflected in the latest filings, according to her campaign. 
The latest filings only include contributions up until June 30. 
The following week, Pelosi hosted a fundraiser for Chan in Jackson Square that brought in over $100,000, according to Chan’s campaign. 
Tickets to attend the event ranged from $500 to $3,500, the contribution limit for individuals. 
Wiener had his own fundraising boost: a last-minute cash injection that came in the days after Wiener was accosted and made to leave the San Francisco Trans March on Friday, June 26, according to his campaign. 
In the four days following that confrontation, Wiener’s candidate committee received over $127,600 from 1,070 people. 
While both campaigns  and the third-party PACs supporting Chan and Wiener  spent heavily in the run-up to the June primary, records suggest that both campaigns and PACs have shifted gears: They presently appear more focused on raising more, and are spending less. 
Spending will ramp up again as Nov. 
3, Election Day, approaches. 
PAC vs. 
PAC 
On top of their own fundraising, both Chan and Wiener have significant backing from PACs, which operate separately from their candidate committees and aren’t subject to contribution limits. 
Notably: Abundant Future, a PAC supporting Wiener, spent heavily in the last period opposing Saikat Chakrabarti, who came third in the primary. 
That committee spent over $400,000 in the last two weeks of May. 
Families for an Affordable San Francisco, another PAC that is canvassing for Wiener, spent nearly $250,000 in the latest filing period. 
Chan meanwhile has the support of the Working Families for San Francisco PAC, which is primarily funded by labor unions. 
On top of that, the independently wealthy Chakrabarti, who spent millions of dollars funding his primary run, has redirected his former campaign staff to support Chan, and converted his candidate committee to a PAC to support her campaign. 
Wiener, for his part, got a head start in fundraising long before he declared his run. 
As of June 30, he had a total of over $4.4 million in contributions. 
Chan had a total of close to $1.1 million. 
That leaves Wiener sitting on a larger war chest: As of June 30, his campaign had over $1.2 million in cash on hand, while Chan had $362,000. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.5%Kelly Waldron: 1.3%Mission Local: 2.7%Confirmation Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.7%Mission Local: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Kelly Waldron: 3.9%Mission Local: 2.9%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 10.7%Kelly Waldron: 2.5%Mission Local: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic10.7%This article: 0.6%Kelly Waldron: 0.1%Mission Local: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 2.6%Mission Local: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Kelly Waldron: 7.0%Mission Local: 4.7%Framing Effect11.3%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.6%Kelly Waldron: 2.6%Mission Local: 0.7%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.3%Kelly Waldron: 6.3%Mission Local: 2.3%Optimism Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.7%Mission Local: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Kelly Waldron: 5.0%Mission Local: 5.9%Negativity Bias15.5%This article: 7.4%Kelly Waldron: 3.2%Mission Local: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias7.4%This article: 6.1%Kelly Waldron: 1.0%Mission Local: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error6.1%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.7%Mission Local: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Kelly Waldron: 0.5%Mission Local: 1.1%In-Group Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Kelly Waldron: 1.3%Mission Local: 1.4%Halo Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.2%Kelly Waldron: 4.3%Mission Local: 1.1%Recency Bias15.2%This article: 2.1%Kelly Waldron: 1.7%Mission Local: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 2.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.5%Kelly Waldron: 6.1%Mission Local: 2.7%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 1.3%Mission Local: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 1.1%Kelly Waldron: 0.2%Mission Local: 0.7%Slippery Slope1.1%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.5%Mission Local: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 1.3%Mission Local: 4.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 2.1%Mission Local: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 3.7%Mission Local: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.7%Kelly Waldron: 1.9%Mission Local: 0.6%Begging the Question3.7%This article: 8.9%Kelly Waldron: 5.4%Mission Local: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.9%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.4%Kelly Waldron: 0.9%Mission Local: 1.1%Burden of Proof2.4%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.3%Mission Local: 2.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.8%Kelly Waldron: 2.6%Mission Local: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.8%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.7%Mission Local: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.4%Kelly Waldron: 2.0%Mission Local: 1.0%Unattributed Quote8.4%This article: 12.1%Kelly Waldron: 2.6%Mission Local: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection12.1%This article: 11.3%Kelly Waldron: 3.1%Mission Local: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice11.3%This article: 5.8%Kelly Waldron: 0.9%Mission Local: 0.9%Indoctrination5.8%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly Waldron: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

618 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.7%attributed speech595writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Arellano • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joe Arellano

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words100% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+91.3 ptsWriter: 8.7%Joe Arellano: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%Joe Arellano: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Joe Arellano: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Joe Arellano: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.