San Francisco politics has long been a weird wonderland. One of its oddest features is the proliferation of “progressive” candidates and Democratic clubs that are progressive in name only. Politicians like Scott Wiener and London Breed magically morph into fire-breathing, left-wing dragons during campaign season, only to change back again to cuddly creatures of corporate interests when they are safely elected.

Likewise, Democratic clubs sprout up around the city pretending to be agents of progressive change, when they are really conduits for corporate “dark money” of murky origin. “They’re poisonous mushrooms,” says political strategist Larry Bush. “This kind of fungi has a long history in San Francisco.”

The biggest mushroom of Election Year 2016 was the Robert F. Kennedy Democratic Club. “They’re Ron Conway’s committee du jour, his flavor of the year,” Bush says, referring to the billionaire tech investor and City Hall power broker.

The club — led by a 31-year-old, bow-tied, corporate public relations man named Justin Jones who has established himself as the fizziest host on the political cocktail circuit — raked in over $900,000 in contributions this year. Most of this bounty came from Progress San Francisco, the political action committee started by Conway and his Big Tech friends, and from the real estate industry.

The RFK Club used this corporate windfall to finance a slate of business-friendly candidates like Wiener and Breed — as well as successful city measures like Proposition Q, the cruel law that lets San Francisco police confiscate homeless people’s tents after giving them 24 hours to move to a shelter. The club also opposed Proposition T, the winning measure that places strong limits on lobbyists’ financial firepower.

By this point, if you’re wondering what the RFK Democratic Club has to do with the values of the man it’s named after, you’re not alone. I wrote a book about John and Robert Kennedy (“Brothers”), and I’m aware of what Bobby Kennedy stood for — and it wasn’t stripping poor and desperate people of their only shelter from the rain and wind.

As a senator from New York, Bobby shined a light on the suffering of our nation’s poorest, in Appalachia and Mississippi and on American Indian reservations. He fasted with Cesar Chavez and lectured a reactionary Central Valley sheriff about the constitutional rights of striking farmworkers. He stood up to the establishment wing of the Democratic Party and risked his life to run for president.

I had a feeling that Robert Kennedy’s family would not be pleased to hear how his name was being used in San Francisco, to mislead voters into casting ballots for candidates and measures that were the opposite of progressive. I was right. When I contacted Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmental and social justice activist who has carried on his father’s mission, he sent me this statement on behalf of the family.

“The Kennedy family condemns the use of Robert Kennedy’s name by an organization that engages in activities that he would abhor. We are exploring our legal options for enjoining Justin Jones and his corporate clients from raising dark money for darker purposes in the RFK name.”

I called Jones for a response, and he told me, “While we have much respect for RFK and RFK Jr., we feel that we’re honoring Bobby’s legacy by serving at-risk groups in our community.” Jones added that Bobby “would be proud” of the club’s community service work. He also insisted that Conway and his wealthy allies “don’t have undue influence” over the Robert F. Kennedy Club.

Jones’ club is part of a network of young, corporate-backed activists who see themselves in opposition to the city’s progressive establishment. One such Jones comrade is 29-year-old Laura Foote Clark, a vice president of the RFK Club and the founder of Grow SF, a pro-development group that attracts funding from some of the same sources as the RFK Club.

Clark is spearheading a campaign to wrest control of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco chapter from its traditional, sustainable-growth leadership. She is one of four pro-development candidates running for the chapter’s executive committee. (Voting, which is limited to chapter members, closes on Friday.)

I disagree with most of Clark’s program, but I find her a friendly and refreshingly honest advocate for her group’s position. She insists that the benefits of a market-rate housing boom will somehow trickle down to low-income and middle-class residents of the city, even without the affordable housing quotas that Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim pushed for at City Hall. I consider that magical thinking.

Clark believes the Sierra Club has become a bastion of antihousing NIMBYism, and she points to the club’s opposition to the 8 Washington luxury condo tower on the Embarcadero as an example. “I don’t care if we block people’s views of the bay. Hey, if you live in a city, that’s the way it is. That’s the trade-off.”

The battle lines are drawn in San Francisco. “Both sides have a clear vision of what the city should be,” says Clark, “and I like that.”

Clark and Jones think progressives and moderates should keep the phone lines open with each other, no matter how strongly they disagree — because there’s a bigger common enemy slouching toward Washington.

On that point, we can all agree. But when it comes to demonizing the homeless or ruining San Francisco’s legendary visual beauty, there’s no room for compromise.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist David Talbot appears Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Email: dtalbot@sfchronicle.com