Tom Steyer and Katie Porter prepare to debate.
Photo: Jason Henry/Getty Images
Much of the strategic buzz over the strangely low-profile yet high-stakes California gubernatorial race has revolved around two issues. First, there’s the fear among Democrats that, owing to their crowded field and the state’s nonpartisan top-two primary system, there could be a “Republican lock-out.” If Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco finish first and second in the June 2 primary, the heavily Democratic state will be forced to elect a Republican governor in November. Second, there’s the search for a Democratic successor in the center-left “lane” previously occupied by early front-runner Eric Swalwell, whose candidacy imploded spectacularly over allegations of criminal sexual misconduct. The apparent winner of that sweepstakes has been former California attorney general and Biden-administration HHS secretary Xavier Becerra, who had a big polling surge after Swalwell’s exit and has attracted some serious money.
Now a third issue is gaining steam, just as mail ballots were sent out to every California voter: Who’s progressives’ best bet, Congresswoman Katie Porter or reformed hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer?
Porter has lots of lefty street cred. A protégé of Elizabeth Warren’s, she won an Orange County congressional seat in 2018 and, as New York’s Rebecca Traister once explained, quickly became a prominent progressive figure in Washington:
In her short time in the House, she has earned national recognition thanks to viral clips of her fisking gun-industry lobbyists, health-care CEOs, and big-bank chiefs, often making use of her trademark whiteboard. In 2019, she leveled JPMorgan Chase head Jamie Dimon by asking him to figure out a monthly budget for a single mom who works as an entry-level employee at Chase for $35,070. “I don’t know; I have to think about it” was all Dimon could repeat, helplessly, as she reminded him of his $31 million salary.
When Porter sought a promotion to the U.S. Senate in 2024, however, her ambitions were thwarted by an expensive negative campaign against her. This was financed by crypto executives she had annoyed, and her better-funded House colleague Adam Schiff capitalized on it while also building up support for Republican Steve Garvey to block Porter from a top-two spot in the general election. It worked. Porter’s comeback in this year’s gubernatorial race has been hobbled by two viral videos showing her dismissing a journalist and cursing a campaign staffer, which haven’t been good for her personal image. But her name ID and past record have kept her in the race, typically polling near but not at the top.
Steyer, meanwhile, has made himself viable via massive spending from his own fortune, which he has mostly devoted to progressive good works since curtailing his hedge-fund career (with the self-indulgent exception of a brief presidential run in 2020). This year, he has spent well over $100 million — far, far more than his rivals could muster — on ads touting himself as a “class traitor” and as “the billionaire who wants to tax billionaires,” clearly bidding for lefty support. He has also come out for single-payer health care and an end to Proposition 13 tax-rate protections for commercial real estate while restating his long-standing positions favoring climate-change prevention. He has earned endorsements from Bernie Sanders’s Our Revolution organization and from several progressive unions.
With her back against the wall, Porter is fighting Steyer’s efforts to crowd her out of the left lane of the gubernatorial race. In a high-profile debate on May 5 nationally televised by CNN, Porter tweaked Steyer for how he earned the wealth he is so lavishly utilizing in the race, as LAist reported:
Porter, once a rising national progressive star, got in a dig at Steyer, who has consolidated support among many of the party’s most left-wing activists. She criticized the fortune he made in part by investing in fossil fuels when he tried to tout his climate-friendly credentials and policy of “making polluters pay.” Steyer has said that he subsequently divested from those investments and devoted himself to addressing climate change.
“How about profiteers pay?” Porter asked pointedly.
But Porter also criticized the famous “billionaire tax” that is likely to appear on November ballots in California, which Steyer has supported as the symbol of his willingness to tax people like himself, as the New York Times noted:
Ms. Porter, asked to explain why she opposes the proposal, said it was “simply not good tax policy.”
Then she counted the ways: It would only tax billionaires once, but the state has ongoing needs for revenue; it would only tax billionaires, but “half billionaires” should pay more, too; and 90 percent of revenues would go toward health care, leaving out other programs.
Porter also sought to address questions about her “temperament” raised by the viral videos depicting her as abrasively irritable by calling on the other (all-male) candidates in the debate to stop “bullying and bickering.”
It remains to be seen if Porter has the time and the resources to counter Steyer’s money and momentum, particularly at a time when Democratic voters continue to fear spreading their votes so thinly that Republicans lock them out. But for progressives who just can’t abide voting for a billionaire, she’s still an option.
Sign Up for the Intelligencer Newsletter
Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.
Vox Media, LLC Terms and Privacy Notice