An open State Assembly seat in Silicon Valley has captured the attention of outside groups with deep pockets that have pumped nearly $3.7 million into a race between two legislative staffers.
With current Assemblymember Evan Low running for Congress, the race for his open seat has become an expensive one between Patrick Ahrens, Low’s district director, and Tara Sreekrishnan, Sen. Dave Cortese’s deputy chief of staff. Ahrens has also served on the Foothill-De Anza Community College Board of Trustees since 2018 and Sreekrishnan has been on the Santa Clara County Board of Education since 2021.
The District 26 seat represents Cupertino, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and parts of north and west San Jose.
More than half of the nearly $3.7 million has come from two vaguely named groups: Santa Clara Forward — a political action committee supporting Ahrens that says it’s a “coalition of health care and technology providers” — and Nurses and Educators, which is a PAC backing Sreekrishnan that is “sponsored by labor, business and community organizations.” Santa Clara Forward has spent $996,962 supporting Ahrens and Nurses and Educators has shelled out $884,420 aiding Sreekrishnan and $330,257 on attack ads against Ahrens through Oct. 30.
Santa Clara Forward has major funding from the California Jewish PAC, the California Dental Association, the California Medical Association, the Uber Innovation Political Action Committee and the DaVita Patient Protection Committee. Nurses and Educators has received monetary support from the California Nurses Association, the American Beverage Association California PAC, SEIU and the Women in Power PAC.
Melissa Michelson, a political science professor at Menlo College, said that with so many voters getting inundated with information about the presidential race, it takes money to boost candidates in down ballot races.
“You have to spend a lot of money in that sort of environment to get people’s attention because so much of their attention is focused in a highly salient presidential race,” Michelson said. “Even to get someone to learn about your candidate is going to be expensive.”
Sreekrishnan’s campaign has been highly critical of outside spending helping her opponent — particularly from groups like PG&E, the California Apartment Association, Uber and the California Association of Relators.
All of the nearly $3.7 million is spent independently from either candidates’ campaigns, meaning they have no control of who is spending the money or how it is spent.
PG&E, the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors have been major funders of a PAC called Neighbors Supporting Patrick Ahrens and Opposing Tara Sreekrishnan that says it is sponsored by housing providers. The group has spent $354,384 backing Ahrens and $123,857 opposing Sreekrishnan.
Sreekrishnan said it’s “really concerning” to see groups like PG&E trying to “influence agendas that are not helping people in this district.”
“We’re clearly two different candidates,” she said of why there is so much money in the race. “I’m standing up for working families and fighting back against special interests and the agenda that is bankrolling my opponent.”
Sreekrishnan said that her top funders are nurses, educators and caregivers.
“I’ve spent my life fighting polluters and he’s funded by them,” she said, referencing her work founding a local climate nonprofit.
PG&E has made some big contributions over the last several months, dropping $100,000 just last week into Neighbors Supporting Patrick Ahrens.
The energy giant has also recently shelled out $250,000 to the Yes on Proposition 4 campaign — the $10 billion climate bond — $275,000 to the Yes on Proposition 2 campaign, which supports the $10 billion schools bond, and at least $150,000 to an Oakland measure to fund police and fire services.
Michelson said that groups like PG&E typically spend big because they are “hoping that the person with their perspective on how to regulate power companies is the kind of person that gets elected to office.”
“For groups like PG&E to spend a couple million dollars is a relatively small investment with a potentially big payoff,” she said.
Despite being the benefactor of more than $2 million in positive spending from outside groups, with another $123,857 spent attacking his opponent, Ahrens said the nearly $3.7 million in the race “clearly marks that our system is broken,” vowing that he will fight for campaign finance reform.
“There’s no reason why outside interest groups should dictate my values or anyone else’s or what we stand for,” Ahrens said.
When asked about the criticism he’s received from his opponent, Ahrens said he’s focusing on talking about the issues, such as the high cost of living, housing and homelessness, in the final days of his campaign.
“I’m actually talking about real solutions,” he said. “All she’s talking about is stopping me. There’s no solutions that she’s actually putting out anymore. We haven’t seen real policy solutions from her in months. It’s just negative attacks.”