San Francisco voters reject tax hike targeting companies with highly paid executives 63%

By Bradford Betz0%

6/9/2026, 12:14:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Recency Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 23.7% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 822 faulty-reasoning hits from 397 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58% and a BS Rank of 63% (8,147 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.80% of the article peer group.

San Francisco voters appeared to reject a ballot measure that would have significantly increased taxes on some large companies with highly paid executives, delivering a win for business groups and technology leaders who argued the proposal could hinder the city's economic recovery. 
According to results posted by the San Francisco Department of Elections, Measure D was failing with 53.64% of voters opposed and 46.36% in favor. 
The measure required a simple majority to pass. 
Measure D would have expanded San Francisco's existing CEO pay ratio tax, which applies to certain large businesses when a top executive earns more than 100 times the median compensation of workers. 
The proposal would have changed the formula by comparing executive pay with a company's entire workforce rather than only its San Francisco employees, while also increasing tax rates on affected businesses. 
CHATGPT BOOM FUELS A LUXURY HOUSING FRENZY IN BAY AREA 
City officials estimated the measure would generate between $250 million and $300 million in annual revenue. 
Supporters said the proposal would help address income inequality while providing additional funding for city services. 
Opponents, including Mayor Daniel Lurie, argued the measure could drive employers away from San Francisco and make the city less competitive as officials work to revive downtown and attract new investment. 
The proposal also faced opposition from prominent technology executives, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who donated $500,000 to a committee campaigning against the measure. 
CALIFORNIA TECH LEADERS CHALLENGE PROGRESSIVE POLICIES AS BILLIONAIRES, BUSINESSES FLEE: REPORT 
The outcome adds to a series of election results that suggest San Francisco voters have shifted toward a more centrist approach on economic and governance issues. 
In recent years, voters recalled former District Attorney Chesa Boudin, removed three school board members and elected Lurie, a moderate Democrat who campaigned on public safety and economic recovery. 
The vote comes as San Francisco seeks to capitalize on an artificial intelligence-driven investment boom while continuing to confront concerns about its business climate and the departure of several high-profile companies and entrepreneurs in recent years. 
CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO 
The defeat of Measure D is likely to be viewed by business advocates as a sign that voters remain focused on economic growth, job creation and efforts to strengthen the city's competitiveness. 
FOX Business' Eric Revell contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.6%Bradford Betz: 3.5%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Bradford Betz: 3.7%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic2.5%This article: 6.5%Bradford Betz: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.5%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Bradford Betz: 4.4%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias4.0%This article: 23.7%Bradford Betz: 17.8%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect23.7%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 3.7%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.2%Bradford Betz: 6.6%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias21.2%This article: 8.1%Bradford Betz: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 7.8%Bradford Betz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 1.6%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Bradford Betz: 1.6%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect6.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.4%Bradford Betz: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias16.4%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Bradford Betz: 7.3%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.8%Bradford Betz: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope7.8%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.5%Bradford Betz: 3.7%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 2.8%Bradford Betz: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring2.8%This article: 7.3%Bradford Betz: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon7.3%This article: 14.6%Bradford Betz: 3.4%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion14.6%This article: 8.1%Bradford Betz: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question8.1%This article: 14.4%Bradford Betz: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.4%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.1%Bradford Betz: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote8.1%This article: 5.3%Bradford Betz: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection5.3%This article: 10.6%Bradford Betz: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice10.6%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradford Betz: 1.6%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Bradford Betz: 2.6%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

397 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers22%attributed speech310writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageSan Francisco Department of Elections • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageDaniel Lurie • 31 words • 0.0% coverageSergey Brin • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageFOX Business • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daniel Lurie

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words36% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%Daniel Lurie: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Daniel Lurie: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%Daniel Lurie: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Daniel Lurie: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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