Irvine Rep. Katie Porter has been engaging in a heated exchange with her Democratic rival in California’s 2024 Senate race, Burbank Rep. Adam B. Schiff, over campaign donation purity tests. Porter has been critical of Schiff for accepting contributions from influential special interests such as oil, pharmaceutical, and financial companies, accusing him of being influenced by these entities in Washington.

Porter has distinguished herself by refusing donations from corporate political action committees, unlike Schiff, who is currently leading in the polls alongside former baseball player Steve Garvey as the primary election nears. She has emphasized her commitment to standing against corporate influence and delivering results on issues like climate change during her time in Congress.

In response, Schiff defended his fundraising practices by highlighting his support for Porter in her congressional campaigns, stating that he had helped raise significant amounts of money for her. He also pointed out that he had previously prosecuted big oil companies before entering Congress, despite accepting contributions from them during his political career.

A recent analysis conducted by The Times on campaign finance reports from the overlapping terms of Porter and Schiff revealed interesting findings. Both candidates have raised substantial sums of money for their campaigns through individual contributions as well as through political action committees that they have established to support other candidates.

Defense, tech, and pharmaceutical companies contributed to Schiff’s campaigns

The analysis showed that Schiff’s committees received a total of 377 contributions from corporate PACs, with his campaign committee and leadership PAC receiving significant donations from industries such as defense, technology, and telecommunications. Companies like Comcast, Wells Fargo, and Amgen were among the top contributors to Schiff’s campaigns.

Porter criticized Schiff for accepting what she referred to as “dirty money” from corporate interests, urging him to take responsibility for his fundraising choices. The majority of corporate PAC donations to Schiff’s committees came from defense companies, including major players like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, as well as other industry giants like Amazon and Universal Music Group.

Schiff donated over $50,000 to Porter

An examination of FEC records revealed that Schiff had contributed over $50,000 to Porter’s campaigns for the House of Representatives. These donations were primarily facilitated through individual donors who channeled their contributions through Schiff’s committees, with messages exchanged between the two candidates expressing gratitude for the support.

In addition to financial contributions, Schiff also aided Porter in raising funds through fundraising solicitations and events, estimating that he had helped her accumulate close to $240,000 since her initial campaign in 2018. Porter’s team acknowledged Schiff’s assistance but reiterated their commitment to refraining from accepting corporate PAC donations.

Navigating corporate money in politics

The issue of corporate influence in politics is a complex one, as evidenced by the fundraising practices of both Porter and Schiff. While Porter has maintained a strict policy of rejecting corporate PAC donations, Schiff’s fundraising efforts have involved a mix of individual contributions as well as support from various groups, including corporate interests.

Porter’s approach to fundraising has been centered on grassroots support and individual donations, culminating in the creation of her leadership political committee, the Truth to Power PAC. This committee has focused on supporting candidates across the country without relying on corporate political action committees for funding.

Despite their differences in fundraising strategies, both Porter and Schiff have demonstrated their commitment to advancing their respective agendas and supporting fellow Democrats in their political endeavors. The ongoing debate over campaign donation purity tests highlights the complexities of navigating the intersection of money and politics in the modern political landscape.