Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Eric Jones’s close ties to a Super PAC

Jones criticizes Mike Thompson for taking PAC money, but is he being hypocritical?

By Roberta Millstein

Flyer in support of Eric Jones’s run for Congress, paid for by the New Leadership Now Super PAC

Among the small deluge of flyers Davisites have received promoting Eric Jones’s candidacy for Congressional District 4, some may have noticed that one was different from the others: It indicated that it was paid for by a group called “New Leadership Now.”  Who is New Leadership Now, and what sort of connection does it have to Eric Jones, if any?  This article aims to shed a bit of light on these questions.  It is a follow-up to my earlier article discussing the direct campaign contributions from Jones’s former venture capitalist co-workers and other individuals from the high tech industry.

New Leadership Now is registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as a Super PAC.  What is a Super PAC?  Wikipedia has a helpful definition:

Independent expenditure-only political action committees, commonly known as super PACs, are a type of political action committees (PACs) in the United States. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are legally allowed to fundraise unlimited amounts of money from individuals or organizations for the purpose of campaign advertising; however, they are not permitted to either coordinate with or contribute directly to candidate campaigns or political parties. However, in practice, restrictions on such coordination are considered flimsy and poorly enforced.[1]

The unlimited expenditures coupled with not really knowing if the committees are actually coordinating with candidates make Super PACs controversial.  Eric Jones has touted his campaign as “Powered by People, Not Special Interests: Not a Dime from Corporate PACs”[2]  What I will describe below casts some serious doubt on that slogan, however.

Let’s start with the donations to New Leadership Now.  The screenshots below show that as of 3/31/2026, there has been $1.797 million contributed to the SuperPAC. Of that total, $297,000 comes from two named trusts: the Robertson 2012 Trust and the Gillespie Family Trust and the rest, $1.5 million, comes from a single individual: Elisa Stad.

Total donations to the New Leadership Now Super PAC as of 4/25/26. Screenshot from https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00900993/
Three trust donations to the New Leadership Now Super PAC as of 4/25/26. Screenshot from https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?committee_id=C00900993&two_year_transaction_period=2026&cycle=2026&line_number=F3X-11AI&data_type=processed
Donation to the New Leadership Now Super PAC from Elisa Stad. Screenshot from https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?cycle=2026&data_type=efiling&committee_id=C00900993&contributor_name=Stad

I am not sure who is behind the Robertson 2012 Trust, but it seems likely that the Gillespie Family Trust is related to two individual donors to Eric Jones’s campaign, Katherine Gillespie and Daniel Gillespie, each of whom donated the maximum $7000/individual back on August 31, 2025, prior to Jones declaring his campaign in early September 2025.[3]  Daniel Gillespie lists his employer as Dragoneer Investment Group, the same company that Eric Jones worked for as a venture capitalist for the previous 12+ years (per Jones’s LinkedIn page).  Katherine Gillespie is listed as “not employed”.  Both list San Francisco as their address.  (In my earlier article, I mentioned the large number of out-of-district donations from employees of the venture capital firm, Dragoneer Investment Group).  Assuming these are the same Gillespies, that would be a total of $239,000 in donations from the Gillespie family.

Donations to Eric Jones’s campaign from Katherine and Daniel Gillespie. Screenshot from https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?committee_id=C00919100&two_year_transaction_period=2026&cycle=2026&line_number=F3-11AI&data_type=processed (you have to scroll through the entries).

As for Elisa Stad, in addition to her $1.5 million donation to the Super PAC, she and Marc Stad, another employee the founder of Dragoneer Investment Group [corrected by RM on 4/26/26], also donated the individual maximums, both on September 8, 2025.  Both also list out-of-district addresses (Santa Barbara and San Francisco, respectively).  The couple was featured in a Yahoo! Finance article in November 2020 as having spent $41 million on two Montecito mansions; the article states:

Though he’s deliberately kept a low public profile, in recent years Stad has attracted increased media attention for his reputation as one of the tech industry’s most successful investors. His Dragoneer Investment Group collection of hedge funds, headquartered in the Bay Area, owns a big chunk of Uber and funded pre-IPO debt for Spotify, among lucrative investments in a number of other high-growth tech companies. Today, Dragoneer has more than $8.6 billion in discretionary assets under management, according to WhaleWisdom. [4]

Donations to Eric Jones’s campaign from Marc and Elisa Stad. Screenshot from https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?committee_id=C00919100&two_year_transaction_period=2026&cycle=2026&line_number=F3-11AI&data_type=processed (you have to scroll through the entries).

I mention this because of the light it sheds on Dragoneer Investment Group — noting in particular its connections to the high-tech firms Uber and Spotify — and the extremely large amounts of money involved, again with the goal of better understanding the New Leadership Now Super PAC that funded the flyer for Eric Jones. It’s hard to deny that there is a close connection between the Dragoneer Investment Group where Eric Jones used to work and the Super PAC that is now supporting his candidacy. 

So, let’s take stock.

The first question I have is the question that always arises with Super PACs, namely, are they really independent from the candidate who they are supporting?  I think that this question arises even more strongly here than usual because the New Leadership Now Super PAC is funded by Jones’s former Dragoneer Investment Group co-workers, some of whom began funding even before his campaign was announced, and who also donated as individuals. 

Second, as I read the available FEC filings for the New Leadership Now Super PAC, they only show expenditures for promoting Eric Jones’s candidacy, not for “new leadership” overall. (Note that the Super PAC was registered on March 31, 2025, not long before Eric Jones announced his campaign). In addition to an expenditure for the flyer pictured at the top of this article, FEC filings show more expenditures as of just yesterday: at least one more direct mailing in support of Eric Jones and digital ads opposing Mike Thompson. 

Expenditures in support of Jones’s candidacy from the New Leadership Now Super PAC as of 4/25/26. Screenshot from https://www.fec.gov/data/independent-expenditures/?data_type=efiling&committee_id=C00900993&is_notice=true&most_recent=true

Third, in light of the close connection between this Super PAC and Jones, his pledge not to “take a dime from special interests, PACs, or lobbyists” rings pretty hollow.  It seems like a distinction without a difference: He won’t take money from special interests, PACs, or lobbyists but he will take money from billionaire venture capitalists, including some of the same billionaire venture capitalists who created a Super PAC that so far has shelled out well over $100,000 in support of his run for Congress, as indicated by the screenshot above.  [UPDATE: Expenditures exceed $1.33 million as of May 9, 2026]. This goes beyond my previous article which just showed that he was taking money from his venture capitalist pals. This is a lot more money and also uses the very corporate PAC mechanism that he claims to eschew.

Flyer sent by Eric Jones for Congress

I mean, I guess he could say “I didn’t know about any of this!” or “I haven’t been involved at all,” and maybe that is true, but I leave it to the reader to decide if they think that is plausible.  And would he — will he — condemn this Super PAC?

If not, then we have to ask whether Eric Jones will truly be representing the interests of District 4 or whether he will instead be promoting the agendas of out-of-district venture capitalists and high-tech companies?  I don’t claim to have answered that question, but I know I don’t feel confident that Eric Jones will represent the interests of our district.

[Note: There is a followup article to this article, an update reflecting $1.1 million spent on ads, including an Orwellian mailer (link here)]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_PAC

[2] https://www.ericjones.us/blog-1/eric-jones-campaign-tops-25-million-raised-with-nearly-2-million-cash-on-hand-powered-by-people-not-special-interestsnot-a-dime-from-corporate-pacs

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Jones_(Political_Candidate)

[4] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/investor-marc-stad-spends-41-005941233.html

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

on

in

, , , , ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

23 responses to “Eric Jones’s close ties to a Super PAC”

  1. Janet D Krovoza

    Wow, thanks for these insights, Roberta.

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      Thanks for reading and commenting!

      Reply
  2. Ann Block

    So it’s ok that Thompson accepts funds from the military/industrial complex (Lockheed Martin is just one), votes for 2+ years to send bombs and arms to Israel, and refuses to meet with constituents about that, (Eric will vote no) refuses to call what is happening to Gaza a genocide (Eric does and is married to a Jewish woman and has Jewish kids), and was rude and did not listen to one of our own Palestinian-American community members who was receiving an award for her leadership and work for human rights. (I was right there). There is much more to be said. Thompson has always self identified as a blue dog Democrat, which is not very far from Republican. Is that who we want representing us? Even neighbors in Napa who have known him and his family for years and our friendly think it is past time for him to retire.

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      I didn’t say anything about Thompson. What I said that Jones claims to be different from Thompson, yet not only does he take individual donations from out-of-district billionaire venture capitalists but also that these same people are funding a Super PAC that is supporting Jones. I guess that doesn’t concern you, but to me, it shows his hypocrisy and sheds doubt on the things that he claims to stand for, as well as his stated claims about not taking money from special interests and corporate PACs. I don’t think we really know who Eric Jones is. If we follow the money, he looks like a very different person than he claims to be, and whatever he really stands for, transparency doesn’t seem to be one of those things.

      No one, to my knowledge, has reported on what I’ve reported on. People can still vote as they wish, but they deserve to know who is funding Jones’s campaign. There are plenty of people, such as yourself, talking about Thompson’s donors.

      Reply
  3. Robert Canning

    Too much money from non-voters in the district (although I’m sure Mike takes some too). Just a opinion, but extremely wealthy tech entrepeneurs are not interested in the voters of District 4. They are interested in fighting any effort to rein in AI and regulate their businesses. The fact that his average donation is over $300 says a lot. Why is he focussing on PG&E? Is he in favor of a SMUD takeover, which would really benefit the ratepayers. I don’t trust him.

    Reply
  4. David Bakay

    First, I’m undecided at this point. I like that Thompson supports and spoke to at least one “No Kings” rally. I like most of what Jones says. I would hope that we could have a fair and balanced discussion about which candidate to support. I think that Ann’s point is that when you attack Jones for his alleged “hypocrisy” -twice- without acknowledging any flaws with Thompson it seems like a hit piece. Unfair and unbalanced. BTW- an honest question: does anyone know if Thompson has traded stocks while in office?

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      I think you’re missing the point of my article. Everyone seems to assume that I’m some big Thompson champion and so I am attacking Jones accordingly. But that is not my point. I know that Thompson has a lot of flaws, and since he has been around a long time, those flaws are well-discussed and well known. The person who isn’t known is Eric Jones, and I think there is a lot of misinformation in his campaign. I also think a lot of people are going on his campaign promises without really knowing much about him other than those promises and that he is young. I think once you know his background there are serious reasons to question his promises. He has no track record, unlike Thompson, where again, we pretty much know where he stands, for better or for worse.

      If I thought there was unknown misinformation in Thompson’s campaign that no one knew about but I did, I would write about that. If you know of any such, I encourage you to write about it and I will post it.

      Reply
  5. Dave Hart

    I do appreciate the work to follow the money. The problem with Super PACs is just that: we can’t follow the money past that little door. Yes, we can infer. This piece doesn’t really change my mind that Eric Jones would be any less transparent than Thompson. Thompson has had decades to consider succession planning, but seems to like to be in office more than challenging the system. His Blue Dog affiliations have never sat well with me. He’s a 1950s Eisenhower Republican. Not bad, but we are facing some dire threats that he hasn’t bothered to address on his own. Bringing up issues and threats to our well being (AI, Climate, etc.) and how to address them is what we need in leadership. Not seeing the energy for that with Thompson unless he gets cornered and is forced to deal. Your research appears solid. That’s good. I’m not convinced Jones is a step in the wrong direction considering the structure of our present day society and democracy

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      Thanks, Dave. It was a fair bit of work to put all of this together, so I appreciate when that is appreciated! And apologies if I repeat things I have said elsewhere, as I am losing track of what I said to whom. So, yes, I fully agree that Mike Thompson leaves much to be desired. It’s not that I think he is more transparent than Jones, but rather that we already know pretty much how he will vote. One of the things that was surprising to me about the Super PAC pouring money into Jones’s candidacy is that we actually can tell, for the most part, who is funding it: It’s the same venture capitalist firm where Jones worked for more than 12 years, Dragoneer, where he was a partner (I have since learned). And most of that money comes from the wife of the founder of Dragoneer. Dragoneer has funded all sorts of Silicon Valley firms like Uber and Spotify, companies that have fought against government regulation (e.g., remember Uber fought against its drivers being classified as employees, where they would have gotten benefits — and they won that fight).

      Here’s another way to put my point. Jones lacks transparency in one way — he says he’s not taking money from corporate PACs and special interests, but in fact, he is. But there is (surprisingly) transparency in another way, because we actually can see where that money is coming from: Dragoneer. So that makes me deeply concerned — more concerned as time passes and I learn more — that he is not at all who he says he is, and that he will not represent the interests of citizens and businesses of District 4.

      Is it time for a change? Yes. Is Eric Jones the person to bring about that change in a progressive direction? I strongly suspect that he isn’t, and there is evidence to support that suspicion.

      Reply
      1. Dave Hart

        That’s all fair enough. I’m not convinced his PAC affiliations known and unknown are necessarily fatal for serving this district well in Congress. The good thing about the House elections is that they come around every two years. I see no evidence to suggest he is a MAGA in disguise and therefore not concerned about how much damage he would do in only two years. Two years is probably long enough to know if he is going to be responsive to voters in his district.

      2. Roberta Millstein

        Well, he doesn’t have to be MAGA. A friend reminded me today that Fetterman ran as a progressive, and we have seen how that turned out. I recognize that Senators have a lot more power than members of the House, but I also don’t know how close the margin will end up being in the House (and in which direction). I feel this is an all-hands-on deck moment with a lot riding on it. The ship really needs to be righted; it’s listing badly. I know my metaphor is goofy but I’d be surprised if you disagreed with the seriousness of our current situation. Maybe in less fragile times I’d be more willing to take a chance. I don’t think we can afford that right now. Thompson might not always vote the way I want him to, but he’s no Fetterman. We can’t afford a Fetterman (or a Sinema).

      3. Hart Dave

        I don’t see from what he says that he is another Fetterman. Anyone who is unknown can be portrayed as scary. If you can find where he thinks government should be shrunk, or that science is a bad idea, I’m interested. Otherwise, he looks like a decent bet for a two year trial run.

      4. Roberta Millstein

        But that is exactly my point. Fetterman didn’t look like Fetterman until he was elected. Before that, he looked reasonable. Progressive even. Again I will say it’s not just that Jones is unknown, but who is funding him. These are billionaires who stand for corporate interests, wealthy San Francisco corporations, and not citizen and business interests of people in our district. And the fact that he is being less than transparent about that funding. And the fact that it is a risky time. I know that I might not persuade you, but I hope you can understand that this isn’t some bias against him. I really would like to have somebody run against Thompson who I could get behind.

  6. –>KeiTh

    “Fetterman didn’t look like Fetterman until he was elected. Before that, he looked reasonable. ”

    Fetterman is one of the few reasonable Democrats in office these days.

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      Thank you for proving my point.

      Reply
      1. –>KeiTh

        Please explain to me how that in any way proves your point?

      2. Roberta Millstein

        It would be evident to anyone who has seen you repeatedly parrot MAGA talking points and support MAGA initiatives.

      3. –>KeiTh

        You just proved my point.

  7. Cosmo Ortega

    Hi — I appreciate the deep research. I continued it for you.

    It is worth noting at the very least that this is a Democratic super donor stepping in to support progressive challenger promising to fight corruption and attack corporate interests

    https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=Marc+Stad&sort=D&type=donors

    Notably different from PG&E and Big Oil PACs

    We need big money on the progressive side to compete with the PACs funded by mega corporations and special interests.

    We need the wealthy to support our efforts to end money in politics and the power of special interests — or else we will just lose to the ultra wealthy on the other side.

    Can’t bring a knife to an all-out war.

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      To continue your metaphor: It’s like Jones is bringing in the big guns but keeping them hidden, then castigating the other guy for using big guns. Then when he gets called out for his big guns, his defenders (in this case you) say “oh, but he’s got the good big gun.”

      I stand by what I’ve said. It’s hypocritical to call out the other candidate for their corporate PAC money and then on the down low be the beneficiary of out-of-district corporate PAC money yourself. And it’s not a small amount… more than $1.1 million so far.

      I appreciate your kind remarks about my research. Considering the three articles I’ve written, it’s taken me a lot of time to learn (much less write about and document!) that Jones was a venture capitalist for over 12 years, that he was a partner, that he has many maxed out individual donations from other venture capitalists and high tech types, that his Super PAC was funded by some of the same venture capitalists, that it’s put huge sums of money toward ads for Jones and against Thompson.

      None of that was at all evident from any of his campaign materials.

      Now, on top of that, I’m supposed to do research on all of his donors and who they have donated to? No. I don’t get paid for this. I’m just a citizen and a voter. It should be evident who a person is from their political track record, except Jones doesn’t have one. And he’s keeping things hidden and being hypocritical.

      It’s hard for me to trust someone under those circumstances.

      Reply
      1. Roberta Millstein

        Actually, it’s worse than what I said above because he is also denying having a big gun.

  8. Peggy

    Thank you, Roberta, for doing the deep dive on this. I wondered what New Leadership Now was when I received the latest flyer. Now I know. I’m excited that young people want to serve in government, but I would appreciate someone with some kind of record. He has none. Yes, run for city council or volunteer for a seat on a city commission. Start there, please. We do not have time for him to learn the ropes of Congress over the next few years. Finally, if you are concerned by the AI threat to our well-being, this is probably not your man. His tech industry backers are most likely heavily invested in lobbying against AI regulation.

    Reply
  9. David Dunlap

    I’ll say this about Mike Thompson and his office. When you or another constituent has a problem and contact them, they respond quickly and usually very effectively. Problem with the IRS, they are right there and have helped me several times. Problem with social security payments or medicare issues. They have helped several of my friends. The office staff certainly seems to know the ropes of dealing with government bureaucracy and is a timely fashion and are willing to follow up and take the issue up the ladder in order to get a helpful response,

    Reply

Leave a comment