Fact-checking Rep. Katie Porter’s claims that billionaires ‘rigged’ California’s Senate primary

After losing her California Senate bid on March 5, Rep. Katie Porter, a Democrat, used language reminiscent of election denialism to cry foul. 

Thanking her supporters in a March 6 X post, Porter wrote: "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."

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. (1/)

— Katie Porter (@katieporteroc) March 6, 2024

Facing criticism of her use of the term "rig" — including from Democrats — Porter later elaborated. 

"‘Rigged’ means manipulated by dishonest means," she wrote in a statement posted to X. "A few billionaires spent $10 million+ on attack ads against me, including an ad rated ‘false’ by an independent fact checker. That is dishonest means to manipulate an outcome."

In that statement, she wrote, "I said ‘rigged by billionaires’ and our politics are — in fact — "manipulated by big dark money." 

"At no time have I ever undermined the vote count and election process in CA, which are beyond reproach," she added.

Please find a statement from me below. pic.twitter.com/as8H2cHWL8

— Katie Porter (@katieporteroc) March 7, 2024

When contacted for comment, a Porter campaign spokesperson pointed us back to her statement on X and to Merriam-Webster’s definitions of the verb "rig," one of which reads, "to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means." Another of the definitions says "rig" is "to fix in advance for a desired result."

Porter’s posts landed in a fraught political environment in which former President Donald Trump and his supporters have consistently asserted that the 2020 presidential election was "rigged." The allegations have been widely rebutted by the courts. PolitiFact has repeatedly rated false and misleading claims about "rigged" U.S. elections.

Sometimes Democrats have joined in with similar language. In 2019, after Democrat Stacey Abrams lost the 2018 Georgia governor race to Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, Abrams claimed the "system is rigged" and repeatedly suggested the election was stolen. (PolitiFact found no proof that voter suppression kept Abrams from winning the 2018 governor’s contest.) 

Rigging an election might refer to buying votes, tampering with voting machines or stuffing a ballot box.

In Porter’s case, she faced an onslaught of opposition spending, some of it by wealthy entities with little or no disclosure required. However, spending unlimited amounts of money to buy ads is legal, as long as the spenders do not coordinate with candidates. 

Democracy and elections experts said people might disagree about whether such tactics should be legal, but this spending did not assure Porter’s loss or amount to a "rigged" election.

California uses an unusual top-two primary system in which the candidates who finish in first and second place both advance to the general election — regardless of their party affiliation.

Although votes are still being counted, Porter is headed toward a third-place finish behind Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff and Republican Steve Garvey, a former Major League Baseball player. 

Garvey entered the race in October, following months of rumors about his possible candidacy. Garvey often polled below Schiff and close to Porter, according to FiveThirtyEight data.

Some news reports before the election characterized the race as one for second place between Porter and Garvey.

In February, Schiff’s campaign released a television ad contrasting him with Garvey. This tactic was expected to accomplish two goals for Schiff: to burnish his image for Democrats, and to make Republican voters aware of Garvey, potentially vaulting him above Porter and making the general election contest easier for Schiff in the solidly blue state. 

Outside money played a role, too.

A pro-Schiff political action committee bankrolled a 30-second ad in February that criticized Garvey for his conservative views and noted his past support for Trump. Around the same time these ads appeared, polling showed Garvey’s support increasing.

Polling showed that after the ads aimed at boosting Garvey began airing, Porter saw a modest increase in support.

In her post-election comments, however, Porter highlighted a different example of outside spending. 

Fairshake, a political action committee linked to cryptocurrency industry leaders, paid for the campaign ad Porter called "dishonest" and that she alleged "rigged" the election against her.

In the 2024 election cycle so far, Fairshake has spent $11.2 million on federal elections, with about $10 million of that spent opposing Porter, according to data from Open Secrets, a nonpartisan research group that tracks federal money in politics. 

Fairshake’s ad claimed Porter accepted donations "from Big Pharma, Big Oil and the Big Bank executives" — a claim The Sacramento Bee fact-checked and rated "mostly false," describing it as "misleading to viewers." 

Spending such as this is legal under the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

"That’s a fact, whether we like it or not," said Daniel Weiner, director of the Elections and Government Program at New York University Law School’s Brennan Center for Justice, a group that advocates for expanding voting rights. Billionaires spending unlimited amounts of money on ads opposing Porter would not be considered "illegal acts designed to change the outcome of the election," he said.

Featured Fact-check

Californians for Lower Drug Prices

stated on March 21, 2016 in a press release

"Twenty-seven out-of-state pharmaceutical companies have raised more campaign dollars (against a drug price control measure) than all other state ballot measures have raised to date, combined."

Political action committees cannot be financed by prohibited sources such as foreign groups and cannot coordinate with campaigns, Weiner said. He characterized the Federal Election Commission’s rules for what constitutes coordination as "pretty weak."

Other political experts said that what occurred fell well short of rigging.

They agreed that Porter’s failure to secure one of the top two spots owes more to Schiff’s yearslong cultivation of California voters and Porter’s political shortcomings than rigging. 

"If a well-endorsed established politician beats a relative newcomer, that’s politics," said Robin Kolodny, a Temple University political scientist.

In American politics, experts say, money is a necessary component of a winning campaign but it is not the only one. In 2022, eight of the 10 congressional candidates with the most self-funding lost. In California, it is not uncommon to see well-financed candidates lose.

Voters cast their ballot on Super Tuesday, at the Ranchito Elementary School polling station March 5, 2024, in Los Angeles’ Panorama City section. (AP)

Experts said Porter’s use of "rigged" echoes rhetoric she’s used against financial institutions during her political career.

"Populist candidates and activists are especially prone to blaming the system, because it maintains their belief that the system needs radical change for justice and social justice to prevail," said Wayne Steger, a DePaul University political scientist.

Democrats, including Sens. Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Alex Padilla of California, a former California secretary of state, criticized Porter’s use of the term "rigged." Steve Schale, a longtime Democratic strategist based in Florida, also rebutted Porter’s statement in an X post.

Schale told PolitiFact he believes it’s unhealthy rhetoric.

"All you are doing is playing into the narrative that nobody actually loses," Schale said. "One thing that makes our democracy work is people acknowledge they lose elections. There is nothing more important to our democracy than people acknowledging they lose elections."

Michael Thorning, structural democracy director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, agreed with Schale, calling Porter’s comment that billionaires spent money to rig the election "completely irresponsible and unserious" in a March 7 X post. 

The Brennan Center’s Weiner said Porter was calling attention to a "very real structural problem" that can disadvantage voters and candidates with less money. But he said he would not have used the term "rig" to discuss the issue because in the current political environment false claims about election rigging are "designed to delegitimize our democratic institutions." 

Porter said billionaires "rigged" the California senate primary election through "dishonest means," citing outside funding that supported attack ads against her. 

Outside funding for ads is legal and is not equivalent to predetermining a particular result. Rigging typically refers to things such as vote buying, ballot box stuffing or tampering with voting machines. It is based on limiting voter choice, and in the California race voters were free to choose among the candidates as they saw fit.

We rate this claim False. 

PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Amy Sherman contributed to this report.

RELATED: Trump’s new ‘evidence’ that Biden lost in 2020 is ridiculously wrong (and dusty). We reviewed it.

RELATED: All of our fact-checks about elections