Throughout California’s U.S. Senate primary — and particularly after it became apparent she had lost — Rep. Katie Porter has been vocal in her criticism of how much money special interest groups and wealthy donors were spending against her.
But it was one three-letter word amid a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter) Wednesday afternoon that raised eyebrows.
Thanking supporters, she said: “Because of you, we had the establishment running scared — withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending money to rig this election.”
See the latest election results.
Using the word “rig” to describe an election loss invited an onslaught of criticism — especially since that has been the mantra of former President Donald Trump after his 2020 election loss.
But Porter doubled down on the term in a late-night statement posted to social media. She clarified that she has not “undermined the vote count and election process in (California), which are above reproach” but is instead calling out the use of what’s called dark money — funds spent on elections by groups like nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors — in the Senate race.
Related links
What could be next for Rep. Katie Porter after Senate loss?
What Katie Porter told supporters after primary election loss for California Senate seat
Election 2024: Schiff leads Senate; Steve Garvey likely heading to runoff in semi-final results
Rep. Katie Porter launches a U.S. Senate bid
“‘Rigged’ means manipulated by dishonest means. A few billionaires spent $10+ million on attack ads against me, including an ad rated ‘false’ by an independent fact checker,” Porter said. “That is dishonest means to manipulate an outcome.”
“I said ‘rigged billionaires’ and our politics are — in fact — manipulated by big dark money,” she continued.
Using the term “rigged” is “irresponsible,” Rick Hasen, a UCLA Law professor and election law expert, said in his Election Law Blog.
Hasen, who is a former Porter colleague at UC Irvine, said he understood the context of her message and shared her criticism of undisclosed outsized money being spent on campaigns. However, better language could have been used, he said, to convey that.
“These comments will be taken out of context to claim that Katie is as bad as Trump in saying that the election system is unfair,” said Hasen. “This will cause more people to doubt the integrity of the election process.”
An analysis of independent super PAC spending of more than $16 million leading up to election day found that the largest share of that spending went toward opposing Steve Garvey, a Republican former Dodger player who jumped into the race fairly late. (Super PACs are political action committees that can take unlimited contributions from wealthy donors.)
Porter has criticized the ads, and the campaign for fellow Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, for attempting to uplift Garvey through the primary so he could have an easier time in the general election. Schiff’s camp, meanwhile, has said Porter attempted to do the same by highlighting Republican Eric Early in ads.
But the second-largest amount of independent spending, the analysis found, was from Fairshake, a cryptocurrency PAC, that funded an aid claiming Porter — known for refusing to accept money from corporate PACs — took in more than $100,000 from “Big Pharma, Big Oil and the Big Bank executives.” The Sacramento Bee rated the ad as “mostly false.”
Related Articles
What could be next for Rep. Katie Porter after Senate loss?
Election 2024: Here are the latest results for San Fernando, Glendale races
Election 2024 Results: OC Assembly incumbents leading their races
Election 2024: LA County supervisors Barger, Hahn, Mitchell hold commanding leads
Election 2024: Here are the latest results for Los Angeles City Council races
“There are better ways to criticize the outsized role of money in politics than to use language that suggests the election process itself is not conducted in a fair manner,” wrote Hasen in the Election Law Blog.
Dan Schnur, a former campaign consultant who teaches political messaging at USC and UC Berkeley, says it could be detrimental for Porter to continue her rhetoric when it comes to the election loss, especially if she has any future political endeavors in mind.
“Now is the time for defeated candidates to close ranks behind the winner to set themselves up for the future, but instead of building bridges, Porter is burning them. It doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Schnur said. “She’s inspired a lot of people over the last several years, but the last memory of this race is going to be how bitter she’s become.”
As of Wednesday evening, Schiff had 33.4% of votes, Garvey 32.2% and Porter 13.9% in third place. Early was behind Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland with 3.6%.