Election day must be near — the endorsements are rolling in.

Mayor Ed Lee on Wednesday threw his weight behind Supervisor David Chiu in the race to represent San Francisco in the state Assembly, one day after his opponent, Supervisor David Campos, was touting the endorsement of California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton.

Lee’s endorsement of Chiu comes as something of a surprise, given the mayor’s lukewarm relationship with the supervisor (they ran against each other in the mayor’s race three years ago) and Lee’s reticence, until now, to weigh in on any of the most controversial issues on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Campos, of course, received his own unusual endorsement a few weeks ago from the moderate, business-friendly District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell.

Lee praised Chiu’s work on pension and business tax reform and improving city infrastructure, as well as his 2012 vote to oust Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, who earlier in the year had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence offense. (That vote has been a major issue in the Assembly race.)

Lee also focused on Chiu’s reputation as a consensus builder who is able to get opposing sides to the table on big policy issues. He blew off past personal tension between the two, saying that’s behind them.

“I deliberately stayed out of this race — you have two sitting supervisors, (who are being) pretty nasty going after each other. I thought this was the right time, because I don’t want the voters to believe it’s all about the nasty stuff going on. We do need somebody in the Assembly who’s going to be effective,” Lee said.

“When we are making important decisions, we have to build consensus around it, and that’s where David Chiu has a lot more experience.”

Burton, who served in the state Assembly and Senate as well as Congress, also used the “e” word — “effective” — in endorsing Campos, and stressed his progressive credentials.

“For decades, this Assembly seat has set the tone for progressive politics in the state of California. David Campos is the only candidate I trust to carry that torch,” Burton said in a written statement. “David Campos is the kind of effective legislator who can not only move the conversation forward in Sacramento, but he’s also shown the ability to work across the aisle to get things done.”

— Marisa Lagos

Complain, complain: Ah, late October. Giants baseball, sunny days, jack-o’-lanterns on front stoops. And yes, a barrage of ethics complaints.

In the days leading up to the Nov. 4 election, ethics complaints filings come fast and furious. The latest? Supporters of Proposition E, the measure to levy a 2-cents-per-ounce tax on regular sodas and other sugary drinks, have filed an ethics complaint against the No on E campaign for not disclosing who is really behind it.

The campaign actually is disclosing who is funding it — that would be the very deep-pocketed American Beverage Association, which as of the last filing deadline had sunk $7.7 million into the campaign to defeat the tax. (Plus, as of Oct. 15 another $350,000 on top of that.)

But the soda tax supporters say the campaign’s literature should really say that it’s funded by the specific soda companies — namely the Coca-Cola Co. and Pepsi Co.

“The American Beverage Association sounds more innocuous than saying up front it’s paid for by Coke and Pepsi,” said Maureen Erwin, campaign manager for Yes on E. “If they named the companies that are paying, it would make it a lot clearer.”

The soda companies are funding the American Beverage Association California PAC, which in turn is funding the local campaigns to defeat the soda tax measures in San Francisco and Berkeley.

The biggest donors have been Coke and Pepsi, with other donations coming from Dr Pepper/Snapple, Red Bull and Sunny Delight.

“The Yes on E campaign is desperate for press attention,” said Roger Salazar, spokesman for the No on E campaign. “We’re confident that we’ve complied with not only the letter but the spirit of the law. We’ve been beyond transparent in this effort.”

— Heather Knight

Love it, hate it: Muni, the city’s beleaguered transit system, and the Municipal Transportation Agency, its Hydra-like parent, may be the favorite punching bag of San Franciscans.

But a recent opinion poll found that most of the 620 randomly selected city residents surveyed by professional pollsters gave favorable ratings to both Muni and the agency, which also controls traffic, parking, taxis and other things transportation in the city.

Among the key — perhaps surprising — findings of the survey are that 64 percent give Muni an excellent (14 percent) or good (50 percent) ranking, while 30 percent considered Muni fair and 7 percent deemed it poor.

As for the MTA, which is under attack as being anticar by supporters of Proposition L in the November election, 62 percent agreed somewhat (47 percent) or strongly (15 percent) that it “effectively manages the city’s transportation program” while 29 percent disagreed somewhat (19 percent) or strongly (10 percent). Surprisingly, 9 percent had no opinion.

Another interesting tidbit in the survey is that 60 percent of people would favor walking farther to a bus stop if it meant a faster trip, while 36 percent were opposed.

MTA has debated, for years, whether to reduce the number of bus stops, which often appear at least once per block, often facing community critics who insist their neighborhoods can’t live without their favorite stops.

— Michael Cabanatuan

E-mail: cityinsider@sfchronicle.com Twitter @sfcityinsider