Listen to the article
Former Congresswoman Katie Porter has launched a sharp critique of billionaire Tom Steyer’s entry into California’s gubernatorial race, despite having previously accepted over $16,000 in campaign contributions from him, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Porter took to social media Wednesday following Steyer’s announcement, writing: “A new billionaire in our race claims he’ll fight the very industries he got rich helping grow — fossil fuel companies, tobacco, and private immigration detention facilities — at great cost to Californians. I call bulls—.”
The criticism comes amid revelations that Porter received thousands in donations from Steyer between 2018 and 2023 across her House campaigns and unsuccessful Senate bid, raising questions about her consistency on the issue.
A Democratic strategist speaking to Fox News Digital called Porter “the ultimate hypocrite,” adding that her gubernatorial campaign has been “the most disastrous race a Democrat has been running in 2026,” making her “a real liability at the top of the ticket.”
Steyer, who previously mounted an unsuccessful presidential bid in 2020, announced his candidacy with promises to make life more affordable for working-class Californians and challenge corporate interests. His campaign specifically highlighted plans to confront oil and tobacco industries.
The billionaire’s wealth is already becoming a focal point for opponents. Betty Yee, a former state controller also running in the Democratic primary, remarked, “Tom Steyer tried to buy the presidency — and he failed. The California governorship is not going to be his consolation prize.”
Porter has faced her own controversies on the campaign trail, particularly regarding her interactions with media and staff. Last month, she abruptly ended a CBS interview after becoming visibly frustrated with questions about courting Trump voters, telling the reporter, “I don’t want to keep doing this, I’m going to call it.” When reminded that other candidates had answered the same question, Porter responded, “I don’t care.”
The former congresswoman has also faced criticism over her treatment of staff members, with three videos showing tense exchanges with staffers going viral within a single week.
California’s gubernatorial race has attracted numerous high-profile candidates seeking to succeed current Governor Gavin Newsom. The field includes former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, state Schools Superintendent Tony Thurmond, former Controller Betty Yee, and former Assemblyman Ian Calderon.
Reports suggested that former Vice President Kamala Harris had considered entering the race but ultimately decided against it.
The clash between Porter and Steyer highlights the increasingly competitive nature of the Democratic primary in California, a state where the party has maintained firm control of the governor’s office. With the election still more than a year away, tensions among candidates are already emerging over issues of wealth, corporate ties, and political consistency.
Political analysts suggest that in a state as large and diverse as California, candidates will need to build broad coalitions across the political spectrum to secure victory, particularly given the state’s top-two primary system that could potentially pit two Democrats against each other in the general election.
Neither Steyer’s campaign nor Porter’s responded to requests for comment on the developing situation.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
It’s disappointing to see this kind of personal attack during an election. Voters deserve a substantive debate on the issues facing California, not partisan finger-pointing.
Absolutely. The candidates should be focusing on outlining their policy proposals, not dredging up each other’s past campaign donations.
While the campaign finance details are noteworthy, I hope the candidates and media will shift the focus to the real challenges facing Californians. That’s what should be driving this election, not political drama.
Well said. The voters need to hear concrete plans for addressing the state’s pressing issues, not just political attacks.
This seems like a distraction from the real issues. Voters should evaluate the candidates based on their policy proposals and vision for California, not just their past campaign donations.
Agreed. The focus should be on the candidates’ qualifications and plans for the state, not personal attacks.
This seems like a distraction from the real issues facing California. Voters deserve to hear substantive proposals from all the candidates, not just personal attacks.
Absolutely. The candidates should focus on outlining their visions for the state, not getting bogged down in campaign finance squabbles.
I’m skeptical of these claims against Porter. Politicians often take donations from a variety of sources, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re beholden to those interests. Her policy positions are what really matter.
Well said. We should be evaluating the candidates based on their ideas and plans, not just their donor lists.
While the campaign finance details are interesting, I hope the media and voters will dig deeper into the candidates’ actual platforms and track records. That’s what will determine who is best suited to lead California.
Agreed. The focus should be on the candidates’ visions and qualifications, not just political mudslinging.
This seems like more political mudslinging. Porter’s past campaign donations from Steyer don’t necessarily mean she’s a hypocrite on the issues. Voters should look at the candidates’ policy platforms and track records, not just financial ties.
Agreed. It’s important to look at the substance of the candidates’ positions, not just attack each other’s fundraising sources.
I’m curious to see how Porter responds to these allegations. Campaign finance can get messy, but her voting record and policy proposals should be the real focus for voters.
Good point. The details of her past donations are less important than her actual stances and plans for the state if elected.