New congressional maps approved by California voters were drawn with the goal of flipping five Republican-held seats to Democrats. Three of those GOP incumbents were left with little chance of survival once their districts turned solidly blue. But in the two remaining battlegrounds, seats Democrats consider essential to retaking the House, costly and divisive primary fights have left Democratic nominees with noticeably thinner campaign accounts heading into the general election.

In the Central Valley’s 22nd District, Republican incumbent David Valadao reported more than $3.3 million in cash on hand, according to federal filings submitted this week. His Democratic challenger, community college professor and school board member Randy Villegas, has just $571,000 available. Villegas had to fight off Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, the candidate favored by the Democratic establishment, in a bruising primary that forced his campaign to spend more than $1.45 million in the two months before the June 2 election. Valadao, by contrast, spent less than $280,000 over that same stretch.

Farther south, in the 48th District, Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond holds roughly $1.2 million in reserve. His Democratic opponent, San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert, has $825,000 on hand after beating back a primary challenge from fellow Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar.

A similar pattern is playing out in the Sacramento suburbs, where Rep. Kevin Kiley, who left the Republican Party to run as an independent, has more than $2.1 million banked. His Democratic rival, former state Sen. Richard Pan, has just $359,000 available.

The gap has been amplified by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that struck down long-standing limits on how much political parties can spend in direct coordination with the candidates they back. Previously, television stations were required to give candidates their lowest advertising rates, while political parties and outside groups paid significantly more for the same airtime — a dynamic that tended to favor Democrats, who generally out-raise Republicans through small-dollar donations. The court’s decision effectively extends those discounted ad rates to party committees as well, and the Republican National Committee currently has far deeper pockets than its Democratic counterpart.

As of the end of May, the RNC reported more than $125 million in the bank, while the Democratic National Committee was more than $3 million in debt, according to federal records. The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s campaign arm, has more than $81 million on hand — more than double what its Democratic counterpart has available.

“This is another arrow in Republicans’ quiver heading into November,” said RNC spokesman Nick Poche in a written statement.

Democratic strategists, however, aren’t sounding alarms just yet. Paul Mitchell, a Democratic political data expert who studies redistricting, said the ruling likely won’t be as decisive as Republicans hope.

“I don’t see this as being, like, the biggest unlock,” Mitchell said, noting that well-funded Republican campaigns likely would have found ways to direct outside money to competitive races regardless of the ruling. He said the decision will more likely reshape how Democratic campaigns divide responsibilities — for example, allowing party committees to handle television advertising while candidates redirect their own funds toward field organizing and voter outreach.

Despite trailing in cash reserves, Democratic candidates in California’s competitive districts still out-fundraised their Republican rivals in the period leading up to the primary. Villegas brought in nearly twice as much as Valadao in the reporting period ending June 30. Von Wilpert outpaced Desmond by more than 3-to-1, collecting roughly $871,000 compared to his $272,000.

It remains uncertain whether national Republican committees will actually direct significant resources into California’s expensive media markets, even with more cash available to spend. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report currently lists just 18 of the nation’s 435 House seats as true toss-ups, with 10 leaning Democratic and nine leaning Republican.

“They want to play where they can win seats,” said longtime California GOP consultant Rob Stutzman. “Money doesn’t solve everything, and they’re on defense in a lot of places.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California GOP Congressional Candidates Lean on Fundraising Edge in Tight Races appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The issue is especially prominent this election cycle, led by liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, who has put $213 million of his own money into his campaign for governor. But the broader trend extends far beyond the governor’s race. More than 200 California candidates have collectively contributed about $250 million of their personal wealth to their campaigns this year, according to a CalMatters analysis of campaign finance records.

That total is roughly eight times higher than the amount self-funded by candidates during the last gubernatorial election in 2022. It also marks the highest level of candidate self-financing since California began keeping digital campaign finance records in 1999.

The last California candidate to approach Steyer’s level of personal spending was Republican Meg Whitman, who contributed more than $140 million to her unsuccessful 2010 campaign for governor, a record at the time.

Other statewide candidates have spent heavily on themselves in past elections, though at far lower levels. Steve Poizner put $14 million into his 2006 campaign for insurance commissioner. Eleni Kounalakis spent more than $8 million in her 2018 bid for lieutenant governor. Yvonne Yiu contributed nearly $6 million to her 2022 campaign for controller.

The surge is also showing up in races farther down the ballot. Candidates for state Senate have put nearly $4 million of their own money into campaigns this cycle, the highest total recorded for the chamber and more than double the $1.7 million candidates contributed 20 years ago. Congressional candidates in California have contributed more than $29 million to their own campaigns, the most in any cycle over the last two decades.

Some of the largest self-funded congressional campaigns in state history are taking place this year. Two of the five California congressional candidates who have spent the most of their own money in the past 20 years are on the ballot this cycle.

In the race to replace Nancy Pelosi in her San Francisco-based district, Democrat Saikat Chakrabarti has contributed nearly $9 million to his campaign, the most ever by a congressional primary candidate in California. In the North Bay, Eric Jones has put more than $5 million of his own money into his campaign against fellow Democrat Mike Thompson.

Chakrabarti has argued that his personal spending is a response to the large sums being spent against him. He said using his own resources allows him to avoid spending his campaign seeking money from major donors and later owing them political favors.

Jeremy Mack, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group The Phoenix Project, said the increase in self-funding reflects a campaign finance system that has become more expensive since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which loosened restrictions on outside political spending by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.

The result, Mack said, is that large-scale spending by outside groups often pressures candidates to raise or spend even more to remain competitive. In California, he said, business interests, real estate groups and law enforcement unions have frequently aligned behind similar candidates.

Some voters see self-funding as a preferable alternative to corporate-backed campaigns. Maria Colon, a Sacramento voter who attended a Steyer rally last week, said she is wary of corporate contributions and believes campaign fundraising should be limited. While large personal spending can raise questions, she said, corporate donors generally expect something in return.

Campaign cash remains a major factor in whether a candidate can be taken seriously, said Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University. A candidate with enough personal money to launch a campaign, he said, can quickly become viable.

Andrew Coolidge, a Republican running for Assembly District 3 in Northern California, has contributed more to his campaign than any other donor. He said voters should question candidates who have the ability to invest in their own campaigns but choose not to. A candidate who puts personal money into a race, he said, shows commitment and may be freer to make decisions based on conscience.

Others see both sides of the issue. Chris Anderson, a Lodi City Council candidate who has self-funded part of his campaign and attended the Steyer rally, said personal spending can make a candidate less dependent on special interests. At the same time, he said, voters should still ask what forces and relationships helped wealthy candidates gain their fortunes.

Political experts say voters are likely to weigh a candidate’s background, record and public involvement alongside spending. Hussey said wealthy contenders may draw more suspicion if they appear suddenly without a history of civic or political engagement.

That distinction has been raised in comparisons between Steyer and Whitman. Whitman had been involved in Republican presidential politics, including Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s 2008 campaigns, before running for governor. Steyer has spent more than a decade involved in environmental advocacy and Democratic politics.

Steyer has rejected the argument that his personal spending amounts to an effort to buy office. At a recent rally, he said voters should consider the money being spent against him and argued that he is the only candidate in the race not compromised by corporate donations.

His opponents disagree. At a recent event at Stanford University, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter said wealth does not make a candidate immune to influence. She compared Steyer’s argument to one made by Donald Trump — that personal wealth makes a politician less beholden to special interests — and said she finds that claim troubling in a democracy.

Original source: CalMatters

The post More Candidates Are Bankrolling Their Own Campaigns. Should Voters Be Concerned? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SEATTLE (AP) — A Washington state judge on Wednesday fined Facebook parent company Meta nearly $25 million for repeatedly and intentionally violating campaign finance disclosure law, in what is believed to be the largest campaign finance penalty in U.S. history.

The penalty issued by King County Superior Court Judge Douglass North was the maximum allowed for more than 800 violations of Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act, passed by voters in 1972 and later strengthened by the Legislature. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson argued that the maximum was appropriate considering his office previously sued Facebook in 2018 for violating the same law.

Meta, based in Menlo Park, California, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Washington’s transparency law requires ad sellers such as Meta to keep and make public the names and addresses of those who buy political ads, the target of such ads, how the ads were paid for and the total number of views of each ad. Ad sellers must provide the information to anyone who asks for it. Television stations and newspapers have complied with the law for decades.

But Meta has repeatedly objected to the requirements, arguing unsuccessfully in court that the law is unconstitutional because it “unduly burdens political speech” and is “virtually impossible to fully comply with.” While Facebook does keep an archive of political ads that run on the platform, the archive does not disclose all the information required under Washington’s law.

“I have one word for Facebook’s conduct in this case — arrogance,” Ferguson said in a news release. “It intentionally disregarded Washington’s election transparency laws. But that wasn’t enough. Facebook argued in court that those laws should be declared unconstitutional. That’s breathtaking. Where’s the corporate responsibility?”

In 2018, following Ferguson’s first lawsuit, Facebook agreed to pay $238,000 and committed to transparency in campaign finance and political advertising. It subsequently said it would stop selling political ads in the state rather than comply with the requirements.

Nevertheless, the company continued selling political ads, and Ferguson sued again in 2020.

“Meta was aware that its announced ‘ban’ would not, and did not, stop all such advertising from continuing to be displayed on its platform,” North wrote last month in finding that Meta violation’s were intentional.

Each violation of the law is typically punishable by up to $10,000, but penalties can be tripled if a judge finds them to be intentional. North fined Meta $30,000 for each of its 822 violations — about $24.7 million. Ferguson described the fine as the largest campaign finance-related penalty ever issued in the U.S.

Meta, one of the world’s richest companies, reported quarterly earnings Wednesday of $4.4 billion, or $1.64 per share, on revenue of nearly $28 billion, in the three month period that ended Sept. 30.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Meta fined $24.7M for campaign finance disclosure violations appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.