Crypto PAC Jumps Into Senate Race, Opposing Katie Porter in California

February 18, 2024 9:09 AM

From NYT (ungated and nytimes.com): Fairshake revealed two weeks ago in federal filings that it and two affiliated super PACs had amassed a combined roughly $80 million in 2023, with most of the money coming from three major cryptocurrency players: Coinbase, Ripple Labs, and Andreessen Horowitz. It is not exactly clear what about Ms. Porter has drawn the crypto industry’s ire other than her record as a progressive who favored regulating the industry to better favor consumers and made the grilling of a financial chief executive a viral moment a few years ago.
posted by AlSweigart (65 comments total)

Other than that, it's a mystery! :)
posted by Gadarene at 9:18 AM on February 18 [42 favorites]

Related: "VC qanon" and the radicalization of the tech tycoons (from July 2023). The politics there are more broad than just cryptoscams though.
posted by Nelson at 9:35 AM on February 18 [5 favorites]

The great thing about crypto people and their fantastically well thought through political credo is... erm. I mean, they're so great at... um.

Yeah, no, forget it. I've got nothing.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 9:42 AM on February 18 [8 favorites]

Coinbase and a16z are also both firms headed by ideological conservative edgelords.
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:44 AM on February 18 [4 favorites]

So much Nazi grifting it going to go on off of the back of this. So much.

Also I hope Thiel gets jealous and fights them.
posted by Artw at 9:47 AM on February 18 [3 favorites]

They are spending money to elect Adam Schiff. Not exactly a radical of any flavor.
posted by MattD at 9:53 AM on February 18 [4 favorites]

"Fairshake"?

People with $80 million to throw at political campaigns believe they're not getting treated fairly?
posted by mhoye at 9:59 AM on February 18 [18 favorites]

As long as you or I have a single penny in our pockets they are going to feel hard done by
posted by thatwhichfalls at 10:12 AM on February 18 [31 favorites]

Curiously, the Fairshake PAC website is ready to take your donations of USD by credit card, but they haven't figured out how to receive crypto donations. Leave your email and we'll get back to you because this is the future of money.
posted by justkevin at 10:12 AM on February 18 [31 favorites]

Well I guess now we know a thing about Adam Schiff.
posted by Artw at 10:13 AM on February 18 [11 favorites]

There are so many people who should be launched into the sun, and that's the perfect job for SpaceX.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 10:17 AM on February 18 [4 favorites]

They are spending money to elect Adam Schiff. Not exactly a radical of any flavor.

Well I guess now we know a thing about Adam Schiff.

Trump has never said he loves neo-nazis, so I don't know why all these neo-nazis are so outspoken about their love for Trump...
posted by AlSweigart at 10:19 AM on February 18 [5 favorites]

I look forward to this inevitably showing up on web3 is going great.
posted by Twain Device at 10:21 AM on February 18 [2 favorites]

Also in SFist: New Crypto Bro PAC Spending Millions on Ads to Defeat Katie Porter in California Senate Race

It has this great line:

"Whatever remaining cryptocurrency moguls who are not looking at prison time have coalesced around a common enemy in Senate candidate Katie Porter..."

If you are a US citizen, you can donate to Katie Porter's campaign through ActBLUE.
posted by AlSweigart at 10:34 AM on February 18 [16 favorites]

The new crypto mega group and its affiliates have attracted prominent Democratic and Republican consulting firms.

Like flies to shit
posted by chavenet at 10:37 AM on February 18 [4 favorites]

Adam Schiff believes in nothing.
posted by Gadarene at 10:40 AM on February 18 [4 favorites]

The use of a middle aged/older black woman’s voice in the ad currently airing is particularly gross.
posted by flamk at 10:41 AM on February 18 [5 favorites]

Regulators are finally setting up rules to oversee the purchase and trade of cryptoscrip, so it is a critical time for industry members to buy what legislators they can while they can.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:43 AM on February 18 [3 favorites]

I'm not sure why I was on Adam Schiff's mailing list, but I just unsubscribed and told him why.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:43 AM on February 18 [2 favorites]

Trump has never said he loves neo-nazis, so I don't know why all these neo-nazis are so outspoken about their love for Trump...

that's sarcasm, right?
posted by kokaku at 11:08 AM on February 18 [3 favorites]

https://www.adamschiff.com/plans/affordability-agenda/

Foster and Grow California’s Innovation and Entrepreneurial Economy

California is home to more jobs in the technology, innovation, and entrepreneurial economies than any other state in the country — and we need to keep it that way. These industries are a vital source of jobs for working and middle-class families, and an important source of revenue to our state. We need to grow these important industries, and work hard to keep these companies, and the innovation and jobs they bring here in California. California is on the forefront of new developments in technology, from Web3 and quantum computing to cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, as well as biotechnology and climate technology. We need to develop comprehensive regulatory frameworks to ensure that these companies and jobs stay here and grow here, and that the United States remains the global leader in these important new technologies. Otherwise, we risk losing jobs to workers overseas, where these technologies will face less oversight and transparency, and which will potentially create increased economic risk for working families.

Yes, he name-drops crypto, but then follows with 'comprehensive regulatory frameworks'.

Has Schiff been making pro-crypto statements, or he getting support from them just because he's running against Porter? If he's been actively cheering on crypto, please link it because I'll hold that against him for decades.
posted by ryanrs at 11:08 AM on February 18 [11 favorites]

that's sarcasm, right?

Yes. I'm asking that if Adam Schiff is such a "moderate", why is the grifter extremist crypto sector throwing millions of dollars his way? The crypto grifters certainly seem to approve of his form of "comprehensive regulatory framework."

Now we know a thing about Adam Schiff, indeed.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:15 AM on February 18 [4 favorites]

why is the grifter extremist crypto sector throwing millions of dollars his way?

I get that, but also I am not ready to rule out the possibility they are just dumb.
posted by ryanrs at 11:17 AM on February 18 [4 favorites]

I get that, but also I am not ready to rule out the possibility they are just dumb.

Sure. But they know what's in their own interests. It's not like they're throwing millions of dollars at Katie Porter.

"Dumb" does not mean "not dangerous", as the last few years have shown us.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:19 AM on February 18 [8 favorites]

I liked it better in the old days when crypto fascist meant something different and arguably less frightening/disappointing.
posted by klanawa at 12:07 PM on February 18 [14 favorites]

Yes, he name-drops crypto, but then follows with 'comprehensive regulatory frameworks'.

Specifically, 'comprehensive regulatory frameworks to ensure that these companies and jobs stay here and grow here,' which seems like bog standard politician doublespeak for 'the bare minimum regulator framework with the broadest possible latitude given to the companies so we don't hurt their feewies'
posted by solotoro at 12:09 PM on February 18 [6 favorites]

"Dumb" does not mean "not dangerous", as the last few years have shown us.

Unfortunately, “smart” Is also not the same as “good,” and isn’t always the kind of “smart” You need in any given situation
posted by toodleydoodley at 12:21 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

So here's a little bit of insider baseball: Schiff and Barbara Lee have been fighting for Bay Area and Santa Clara County Democrats, with Lee going for POC and DSA while Schiff goes after moderates and labor (he's gotten the support of Robert Rivas, the Speaker of the CA Assembly).

As far as I can tell, Porter's just focusing on SoCal voters. Or at the least, I've been woefully underinformed on her efforts in Central California and Santa Clara. Or put it another way, two out of three candidates' campaigns have solicited me for my endorsement. Katie has not.

So I think it's less that these guys see Schiff as their guy as it is that Schiff is a conventional politician that can be lobbied in conventional ways, and that he's been making the rounds thanks to his friendship/alliance with Zoe Lofgren. The crypto guys see a channel to Schiff, while Porter has not been making herself known in the Silicon Valley, at least to the circles that I know.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 12:31 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

Adam Schiff believes in nothing.

Good thing Feinstein was propped up until she died of dementia. Otherwise we might have missed out on all this.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 12:32 PM on February 18 [6 favorites]

I'm asking that if Adam Schiff is such a "moderate", why is the grifter extremist crypto sector throwing millions of dollars his way?

Because he hasn’t overtly voiced any (to their ears) anti-crypto sentiment? Porter has been pretty vocal, which makes her the enemy.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:52 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

I have frequently donated to politicians with whom I don't really agree, in an effort to keep their dangerous opponents out of office. (Tennessee Senate candidate Phil Bredesen, for instance, is not my favorite. But he would have been better than Marsha Blackburn.)

Pretty sure crypto bros are capable of understanding that to keep Katie Porter out, they have to support one of her opponents who has a chance of winning, whether he appeals to them or not.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:26 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

Katie Porter a SoCal candidate? I am been seeing ads for her on local Bay Area TV for weeks. No mention in the ads about crypto, just the usual “fighting for the people” stuff and how she’s never taken money from PACs. These crypto dudes ads imply that she has in the sense of direct from corporations money. Those ads have been playing a lot here too. For me, all political ads are lies being advertisements.
posted by njohnson23 at 1:33 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

It’s a shame. Porter is finding herself a target of rich men who don’t like the idea of a strong woman telling them that there are in fact rules at the same time the DNC is quietly shitting on her for daring to run for a position they have decided should go to someone else.

Meanwhile, if you’re looking to replace Pelosi, who was great at spectacle but always stopped short of meaningful change (especially when it might cost the party something), who better than Schiff? He’s got the grandstanding and spectacle part down pat, and would have an excellent senate career where, in the end, his voting record will turn out to be (not) shockingly conservative. For decorum’s sake.
posted by Ghidorah at 1:37 PM on February 18 [10 favorites]

I mean, Schiff has an extensive existing congressional voting record you can look at? Rather than speculate he's somehow a secret conservative?
posted by kickingtheground at 1:38 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

Hold it Schiff is a secret Crypto-Bro is the answer, and not just - we're going to fuck over Katie Porter anyway anyhow?
posted by Glinn at 1:42 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]

Everything I have seen, including news reports and crypto-industry politician rankings, link back to that one mention on his campaign site.

If Schiff was a crypto fan, like NYC Mayor Eric Adams (or even 1/10th of Adams), I would consider that disqualifying. But I haven't seen anything like that posted here. Just innuendo and Porter donation links.
posted by ryanrs at 2:03 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

I've lived in Rep. Lee's district for about 20 years, have voted for her every single time, and have every intention of doing that again come the March Senate primary.

But, damn, this almost makes me change my mind!
posted by Frayed Knot at 2:06 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

I'm actually mad about this because if Schiff was a crypto bro, I could have tuned out large parts of this Senate race.
posted by ryanrs at 2:07 PM on February 18

It seems like this at least represents a judgment that Schiff is someone the cryps can do business with -- put differently, that he is enough of a standard politician that he can be relied on listen to his backers, especially on non-marquee issues.

I am a bit of a Porter-skeptic but I think that the cryps are right to think that she is sufficiently committed to actual principles that it would be much more difficult to get her to launder their positions into respectability.
posted by Not A Thing at 2:10 PM on February 18 [5 favorites]

It's crypto bros and right-wing weirdos so I wouldn't discount how much of their opposition to Porter is that she has girl cooties.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:21 PM on February 18 [10 favorites]

A bit more context here..

Schiff has been expected to win the Senate seat. Porter is likely the second place among the Democrats and Barbara Lee is a distant third. There's still months to go and polling is not very clear yet, so it's not certain. But that's the expectation.

There's also a serious Republican running, Garvey. As the NYT article notes, "Mr. Schiff, who has been campaigning to elevate Mr. Garvey over Ms. Porter into the general election". That's a bit of California gimmickry. We have a jungle primary, so the November ballot could be Schiff vs. Garvey or it could be Schiff vs. Porter. Schiff will clearly win against Garvey so it's in his interest if Garvey gets enough votes in the primary to keep Porter off the final ballot.

I don't quite understand why the cryptoscammers feel it's worth investing $80M (in fiat money!) to smear Katie Porter. Maybe they want to head her off early in the primary too. Or maybe it's a form of tithe to the expected winner, to get in his good graces early. It could also be they just don't like Porter, they have every reason not to.

American politics is hopelessly corrupted by money.
posted by Nelson at 2:43 PM on February 18 [13 favorites]

As far as I can tell, Schiff hasn't been much of a crypto cheerleader. And Porter hasn't been much of a crypto foe. But she does have a social media presence in which she's (sometimes literally) quite vocal about a lot of other things.

It sounds to me like these crypto bros hate them some "mouthy" women, and are figuring they're playing some kind of three dimensional chess here, doing a "let's you and him fight" ploy.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:52 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

I don't know if it will take a civil war to get a new Constitution. I hope it doesn't. But the first line in the new First Amendment will have to dictate zero money in politics to keep these grifters out of our democracy.

Cryptoscripters are especially toxic grifters, and their influence isn't just limited to politics, but includes ruining the day-to-day lives of people near their pollution-laden operations.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:16 PM on February 18 [6 favorites]

OpenSecrets puts the figure at $85 million. Fairshake is registered in Palm City, Florida, 40 miles north of Palm Beach, and its treasurer is Brandon Philipczk, a former chief operating officer for the Florida Democratic Party.

In 2022, Philipczk served as treasurer for the Democracy Protection PAC, another source of opposition ads in Democratic primaries: that year, the PAC spent $260K, its only expenditure, on TV & digital ads targeting NY Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. After a redistricting shake-up merged Manhattan’s Upper West Side and Upper East Side into one district, a primary was held in August where Maloney faced off against longtime colleague Rep. Jerry Nadler for the sole House seat. Nadler won that primary, and the November '22 general election.

Both politicians had long résumés, and had been in Congress since the early 1990s.

In 2018, Philipczyk was the COO of the Florida Democratic Party; in 2020, Philipczyk was the operations manager for Mike Bloomberg's campaign in Florida. In 2012, he worked in the same capacity for Obama in Florida. Incidentally, Brandon Philipszk is the chairperson and treasurer for Friends of Sarah Henry; Henry, a Democrat, has renewed her bid to represent District 38 (Tallahassee) in the Florida Statehouse. In 2022, she lost a close race [around 3K votes!] to Republican David Smith. (Redistricting had put Smith in a Democrat-leaning district where the bulk of voters have never seen his name on the ballot.) No idea what else Philipczyk's involved in, politically; he's a young, energetic guy, and gets around.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:31 PM on February 18 [5 favorites]

The Big Money Bets on Schiff (American Prospect, Feb. 14, 2024) The California Senate candidate is using every campaign tactic of recent vintage: benefiting from pro-Israel and crypto money, and trying to choose his general-election opponent. [...] A pro-Schiff super PAC is running an anti-Garvey spot on Fox News, even though Schiff himself has called for a Democratic boycott of the network. The ad doesn’t mention Schiff at all, harping instead on Garvey being “too conservative for California” and how he’s “rising quickly in the polls,” a signal to Fox News voters that a vote for Garvey would be meaningful. The expectation is that this will be a seven-figure ad buy. In the shorthand of political professionals, these are “McCaskill ads,” following the strategy of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who in 2012 ran spots that appeared to condemn Todd Akin’s extremism, but which really sought to widen Akin’s appeal to conservative voters.

Schiff’s allies have also used subtler tactics to press his case. A Politico story last month alleged that a Schiff-Porter general election would take money and attention away from key California House races that could decide which party has control next year. Only politicians who have endorsed Schiff are quoted putting forward that narrative in the story, along with one anonymous campaign operative.

When I asked Porter about this story last month at the first Senate debate, she replied that a Dem-Dem Senate race would actually boost Democratic turnout in the state, given the uncompetitive presidential election in California. “Having a spirited conversation between Democrats is the best tool that we have,” Porter said. “The Senate race will be the top of the ticket. If we don’t have a competitive Senate race, Democrats won’t be able to win down-ballot, including in Congress but also in places like our school district where we’re seeing LGBT individuals attacked.”

McCaskill wrote about her winning strategy in a memoir; in Aug. 2015, Politico's excerpt ran as "How I Helped Todd Akin Win — So I Could Beat Him Later".
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:37 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

The crypto bros are afraid of getting whiteboarded.
posted by Eikonaut at 3:37 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

Man Dems sure do fucking like the “one weird trick” which involves giving a bunch of money to republicans.
posted by Artw at 4:42 PM on February 18 [11 favorites]

There are days when I imagine the presidential primary I'd like to be voting in this year. Katie Porter vs. Elizabeth Warren. I like to think about how agonizing that choice would be, how hard I'd have to struggle before inking in my vote. I think about how proud I would be as I cast my ballot, of my party, of my country, of the voters who made this possible. I think about how I'd wait for the general election with hope for the future in my heart.

Sigh.
posted by MrVisible at 4:58 PM on February 18 [7 favorites]

Not sure what's supposed to be so mysterious about their motive here.
Katie Porter is a (literal) student of Elizabeth Warren. The distinctive thing about Warren Thought is its intense central focus on aggressive regulation of the finance sector - in a way which really isn't characteristic of most other democrats or even progressives.
posted by kickingtheground at 5:01 PM on February 18 [18 favorites]

[Schiff's agenda] > California is on the forefront of new developments in technology, from Web3 and quantum computing to cryptocurrency and blockchain technology

From the department of redundancy department?

No mention of chip design? Some of that happens in Texas and manufacturing in Oregon and Taiwan, but it's a pretty big part of California's economy that requires constant spending just to keep up.
posted by ASCII Costanza head at 10:34 PM on February 18

Can we maybe try pointing out the irony that cryptocurrency companies are collecting these funds in US-issued currency?

Like, if cryptocurrency really were the be-all and end-all that they claim them to be, why use US dollars for their POC? Why not build up their anti-Porter warchest in ThiccBatcoin or whatever?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:08 AM on February 19 [1 favorite]

If Schiff was a crypto fan, [...] I would consider that disqualifying. But I haven't seen anything like that posted here. Just innuendo and Porter donation links.

Innuendo and millions of dollars.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:11 AM on February 19 [3 favorites]

> There are so many people who should be launched into the sun, and that's the perfect job for SpaceX.

Nah, that's a huge waste of resources, more unnecessary carbon in the atmosphere, and financially propping up Muskrat. Instead of SpaceX, just have Phony Stark's boring machine give them an one-way Uber/Lyft to beneath that pile of buried Atari 2600 E.T. cartridges, and then we can pump in wet concrete after them. Probably not ecologically sound, but I'm willing to accept those risks for the longterm gains it'd provide.
posted by Fiberoptic Zebroid and The Hypnagogic Jerks at 9:34 AM on February 19 [1 favorite]

Katie Porter is truly phenomenal - that is all....
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:37 AM on February 19 [1 favorite]

the first line in the new First Amendment will have to dictate zero money in politics

So in this world, if you are making a movie are you not allowed to have any "political" messages in your movie? Because you are spending money to make it, and so a political message would be "money in politics"?

What if the movie is a new adaptation of "To Kill A Mockingbird," and a racist political candidate tells a judge that "racism is bad" is a political message? Can the judge stop you from making the movie?

Keeping money out of politics is actually really hard, because nearly every public act or statement is politics, or has political implications. Can you fundraise for protest expenses? (Porta potties and sound systems aren't free!) Can you pay a local Native American artist to paint a mural on your barn with Native themes? (Native rights are a political issue too.) Can you donate money to charities (like Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4) arm) which lobby Congress?

This Super PAC activity is not too far from that. None of this money is going to Schiff himself or to his campaign. It's going to these independent groups, who are using it to buy anti-Porter ads.

I think the most we could reasonably do is go back to a pre-Citizens United world where groups like that can make ads about "issues" and sort of subtweet candidates, but not mention those candidates by name.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:54 PM on February 19

Keeping money out of politics is actually really hard, because nearly every public act or statement is politics, or has political implications

This statement is so reductive that it becomes pointless to call any speech, anywhere, anything other than a political act, which is nonsense by any rational standard. Not withstanding conflating the act of commercial enterprise (e.g., making a movie) with free speech. Please.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:46 PM on February 20 [1 favorite]

If you think making a movie could not be a political act, then you agree with the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United:

During the 2004 presidential campaign, the organization [Citizens United] filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made. In response, Citizens United produced the documentary Celsius 41.11, which is highly critical of both Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing Celsius 41.11 and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.

In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial filmmaker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films. During the 2008 political primary season, it sought to run three television advertisements to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie

...

Can a group unaffiliated with a campaign make a movie that criticizes a candidate by name without violating campaign finance laws? If you say no, you limit where and when Fahrenheit 9/11 can be shown (personally I've come to be okay with this). If you say yes, then you open the door to "Celsius 41.11" and also to Super PACs like the crypto one we are discussing here.

Super PACs are outside groups, unaffiliated with a campaign, raising and spending money to create and distribute media or stage events critical of a candidate (or supportive of a different one, but that's not what's happening in this case?) If you and your friends do want to raise money for porta potties at a protest and not wind up breaking any laws or owing any surprise taxes, organizing yourself as a super PAC is a very smart way to go. That's what a super PAC is for.

My point was to emphasize that Schiff is not getting any of this money, legally has no say over what is done with it, and cannot stop these crypto bros from doing this even if he wants no part in it. It is illegal (under current campaign finance law) for him to coordinate with a super PAC.

It was hard to stop this kind of independent activity even before Citizens United, but at that time these guys would have had to attack Porter without actually using her name. (There used to be lots of subtweet ads like that, and everyone knew who they were talking about.) There were no limits on that kind of spending (which was called "soft money" back then) even before Citizens United. And it was a problem! It gave politicians some messed up incentives, just like you are worried about Schiff having! Money in politics was a problem even before Citizens United, unfortunately.

But if you make it illegal for people to spend their own money making media about political issues, you really might make "Fahrenheit 451" illegal right alongside "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Celsius 41.11."
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:52 AM on February 21

"Katie Porter goes after Adam Schiff in final California Senate debate" (NBC News)
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:36 PM on February 21

How the genius plan is working out.
posted by Artw at 9:51 AM on March 2

How the genius plan is working out.

I'm interested to know what is behind that link, but not quite interested enough to make a new social media account. Oh well.
posted by solotoro at 8:02 AM on March 4

No idea if this is holding up:

File under "Be careful what you wish for". The PAC affiliated with Senate campaign of Rep. Adam Schiff has been boosting fmr Dodger great Steve Garvey (R), hoping to get Garvey (rather than Rep. Katie Porter/Rep. Barbara Lee) into top 2 runoff.

Garvey's now in 1st. Schiff & Porter close for 2nd.
posted by Artw at 7:57 PM on March 4

With 48% of the vote in, early results are 35% Garvey, 31% Schiff, 16% Porter, 9% Lee. Looks like it'll be Schiff vs Garvey for the November race with Schiff very much expected to win.
posted by Nelson at 8:29 AM on March 6

Well, fuck him.
posted by Artw at 8:37 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]

Uh OK? He'll be a fine senator. I don't love the California Democratic machine, nor a bunch of cryptobros influencing things with their money. I would prefer Porter. But he'll be fine. He's competent and mostly has reasonable politics.
posted by Nelson at 8:56 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]

Katie Porter:

Thank you to everyone who supported our campaign and voted to shake up the status quo in Washington. Because of you, we had the establishment running scared — withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election. ...

Special interests like politics as it is today because they control the politicians. As we’ve seen in this campaign, they spend millions to defeat someone who will dilute their influence and disrupt the status quo.

These tweets have gone over very poorly in the media, with many outlets connecting her use of the word "rig" to Trump's lying about previous elections. See Politico, Vanity Fair, LA Times, etc.

Porter later clarified saying

"Rigged" means manipulated by dishonest means. A few billionaires spent $10 million+ on attack ads against me, included an ad rated "false" by an independent fact checker. That is dishonest means to manipulate the outcome. I said "rigged by billionaires" and our politics are — in fact — manipulated by big dark money. Defending democracy means calling that out.

I tend to agree with this MSNBC editorial that it was clear in context she meant "rigged" in a more colloquial sense of spending from the wealthy undermining our politics. It's unfortunate her words got connected in people's minds to Trump's election denialism. I think the money influence Porter is complaining about is a very real problem and it's entirely different than Trump's undermining democracy with conspiracy fabulation. But Porter's communication about it backfired.
posted by Nelson at 8:24 AM on March 8 [3 favorites]