Politics

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The packed race for California governor has left many Democrats in the state wrestling with who to vote for in the race’s closing days.

Though voting began in early May ahead of the June 2 primary, Democrats have been returning their ballots at a slower pace than normal after a chaotic campaign full of surprises. Unlike recent races for governor, there’s been no clear frontrunner or political superstar (think Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger or Democrat Jerry Brown).

“I’m kind of pinching my nose and voting this go-around rather than being excited,” said Colin Culver, a 21-year-old San Diego resident who ultimately voted for Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager turned climate activist.

Democrats have been particularly perplexed given the state’s top-two primary system, which places all candidates on a single ballot regardless of party. There are roughly 60 candidates vying to succeed termed-out Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. They include six major Democrats and just two prominent Republicans.

With the large number of Democrats running, party leaders feared months ago that the two leading Republicans, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, could advance, locking out Democrats. That scenario has grown less likely after former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race after being accused of sexual assault, but the scandal further rattled anxious Democrats. President Donald Trump endorsed Hilton in April, which may have coalesced GOP support behind him and decreased the odds of a Republican upset in a state that hasn’t had a Republican governor since 2011.

But the fear among voters remains. Some Democrats are waiting to cast their ballots to see if one candidate breaks away from the pack in the final days, relying on polling to help make their decision. Others have struggled to make up their minds, reluctantly choosing a candidate after being unimpressed with the field.

Even Democrats who typically have a high turnout in primary elections — often older, white voters — have been slow to drop off their ballots, said Paul Mitchell, a Democratic strategist tracking ballot returns.

“My joke is: Call your Democratic parents and tell them to turn in their ballot,” he said. “They are holding onto the ballot because they have seen this kind of topsy-turvy governor’s race. They’re waiting to make sure they’re making the right choice.”

About 10% of the state’s roughly 23 million voters had voted as of Wednesday, according to Mitchell’s tracker. That includes about 15% of Republicans, 10% of Democrats and 7% of voters registered with no or another party. That breakdown is unusual because Democrats in recent years have tended to vote early while many Republicans wait until Election Day.

Former state attorney general and federal Health secretary Xavier Becerra and Steyer are among the top Democrats voters are weighing.

A poll conducted in mid-May by the Public Policy Institute of California found that Becerra and Hilton each have the support of about 2 in 10 likely California primary voters. Steyer, Bianco and former Congresswoman Katie Porter each drew the support of between 10% and 15% of likely voters in the survey. No other candidates were polling in double digits.

Support for Becerra has increased from only 5% in a PPIC poll conducted in late March and early April, when Swalwell was still in the race.

Some voters aren’t relying on the polls to make their choice. That includes San Francisco native Mary O’Neal, who voted for former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa because she liked his record leading the city from 2005 to 2013. Although he’s been on the debate stages, he’s failed to generate significant support.

Fresno native Alexa Duran, 22, a recent graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, said she’s leaning toward Becerra, despite her concerns about his refusal as attorney general to investigate the killing of a Latino man by an officer in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2020.

“I know he has tons of political experience, but I’m just not sure if he’s the right candidate,” Duran said.

Amber Larson, 41, a judicial analyst for the state living in Chico, likes Ramsey Robinson, a socialist candidate. But casting her ballot for him would be a “waste” due to his slim odds, she said.

She doesn’t want to support a longtime politician — Becerra — and she’s skeptical of billionaires — Steyer.

“Are we at a point where only a billionaire can beat an establishment, career politician?” Larson said, referencing Steyer spending millions to largely self-fund his campaign.

She planned to go with Steyer anyway because she likes his energy affordability plans and since he’s one of the leading candidates.

“I don’t want to throw my vote away,” she said.

—-

Associated Press journalists Jaimie Ding in Los Angeles and Terry Chea in San Francisco contributed to this report.

source

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jill Biden feared her husband was having a stroke as she watched then-President Joe Biden stumble through a disastrous debate performance that led to the end of his 2024 reelection campaign, the former first lady said in a recent interview.

“I was frightened, because I had never ever seen Joe like that before or since. Never,” Jill Biden told CBS News in an interview scheduled to air Sunday.

Joe Biden’s shaky, mumbling and sometimes confused delivery against Donald Trump in June 2024 gave fuel to questions voters already had about his fitness for a second term. His attempts to explain away his performance and offer reassurance that he could handle four more years of the demanding job did little to assuage voters. Under mounting pressure from within his party, he stepped aside, and Democrats nominated Vice President Kamala Harris.

“I don’t know what happened,” Jill Biden said in the interview. “As I watched it, I thought, ‘Oh, my God, he’s having a stroke.’ And it scared me to death.”

The former first lady is promoting a book due out next week, “View from the East Wing: A Memoir.”

source

NEW YORK, May 28 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump on Wednesday refiled a defamation lawsuit seeking at least $10 billion in damages against the Wall Street Journal over its reporting on his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, after a judge threw out an earlier version over legal deficiencies.

The lawsuit is one of several Trump has brought in his personal capacity against news organizations, part of what critics say is a wider pressure campaign against the media. 

• Trump’s lawsuit said the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper tarnished his reputation with an article describing a birthday card to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as bearing Trump’s signature. Trump and his lawyers said the card is fake, even after it was released ​by lawmakers investigating Epstein’s case.

• Trump is seeking at least $10 billion in damages, according to the amended lawsuit. He had sought the same amount previously.

• “At the time of publication, Defendants recklessly disregarded whether the Defamatory Statements were true and/or they purposefully avoided the discovery of the truth,” lawyers for Trump wrote in the amended complaint.

• ⁠The lawsuit filed in Miami federal court names Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, News Corp and its CEO Robert Thomson, along with two Wall Street Journal reporters, Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo, as defendants, saying they defamed Trump and caused him to suffer “overwhelming” financial and reputational harm.

• Dow Jones has said it has full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of the Journal’s reporting and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

• Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender, died in a New York jail cell in 2019. His case generated conspiracy theories that became popular among Trump’s base of supporters who believed the government was covering up Epstein’s ties to the rich and powerful. Trump has said he parted ways with Epstein before the financier’s legal troubles became public in 2006.

• U.S. District Court Judge Darrin P. Gayles, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, threw out Trump’s first complaint in April. The judge found Trump had not met the “actual malice” legal standard for public figures in defamation cases, which requires evidence that a defendant published a statement that they knew or should have known was false.

• Trump has also filed defamation and other lawsuits against other media organizations, including the New York Times, the BBC and Iowa’s Des Moines Register. Those outlets have denied wrongdoing and are fighting the cases in court.

• Trump’s administration has acted to restrict press access to government agencies and threatened to use regulatory powers against critical outlets, drawing legal challenges by media organizations.

• The White House has described Trump as the most open and accessible U.S. ⁠president ever, saying his administration has broadened press access in unprecedented ways.

(Reporting by Jack Queen in New York and Anusha Shah in Bengaluru; Editing by Edwina Gibbs)

source

By Trevor Hunnicutt and Gram Slattery

WASHINGTON, May 27 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he was unconcerned about the political fallout of an extended conflict with Iran, and that Iranian leaders had miscalculated if they thought the November midterm elections would force him into a deal.

“They thought they were going to outwait me,” Trump said at a White House cabinet meeting, referring to Iran’s leadership. “You know, ‘We’ll outwait him. He’s got the midterms.’ I don’t care about the midterms.”

The president had initially said the war would last four to six weeks, but it is now approaching its fourth month. At times, he has suggested the conflict could end within days only to later suggest it could go on for some time.

Trump made the comments on Wednesday as he discussed how to end the conflict. His dismissal of midterm pressure could add to concerns among Republican allies already uneasy with earlier remarks downplaying the economic impact of the war on Americans.

Growing voter disquiet about high prices, especially for gasoline, has added to political pressure on Trump’s Republican Party, which is widely expected to struggle to keep control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate.

That unease was amplified by Trump’s decision to endorse Ken Paxton, a scandal-plagued primary challenger, over incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

Paxton, who was indicted for felony fraud and is being divorced by his wife on biblical grounds, handily beat Cornyn in a Tuesday party primary after securing the president’s endorsement. Democrats now view the Senate seat in the solidly Republican state as competitive in November.

“Look at what happened last night,” Trump said, referring to Paxton’s win. “That was a prelude to the midterms.”

During the cabinet meeting, Trump also referred to his construction projects in the U.S. capital. Some Republican lawmakers say these are a distraction from the more pressing economic issues.

A Reuters review of his public statements since January showed that the president has increasingly mentioned the White House ballroom, renovations of the Reflecting Pool and plans for a giant arch.

(Reporting by Trevor Hunnictt and Gram Slattery, editing by Ross Colvin and David Gregorio)

source

By Jasper Ward

May 27 (Reuters) – California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed under the Trump administration’s nearly $1.8 billion fund for victims of alleged political “weaponization,” the state’s Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Wednesday. 

“One thing I think we’re going to try to do … is tax 100%. Anyone from California who receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100% of those proceeds and that’s an action the state of California can take,” Newsom said. “It’s an action we look forward to taking.”

In a post on social media, the governor’s press office described the $1.776 billion fund as a “slush fund.”

Newsom did not indicate when the state would start imposing the tax.

The White House and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The fund was announced last week as part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s legal settlement with the Internal Revenue Service after he initially sued the agency over his tax returns being leaked to the media.

Trump pardoned more than 1,500 January 6 defendants last year. Some have now begun to calculate the cost of their prosecution, jail time and businesses lost in the hope of compensation for ​what they regard as abuses by the Justice Department under former President Joe Biden.

The unprecedented move is already facing a legal challenge by two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol from rioters on January 6, 2021.

Democrats and some Republicans ​have questioned the legality of the fund, as well as a part of the settlement “forever barring” the IRS from auditing past tax claims by Trump, his relatives and his businesses.

“(The fund) could potentially compensate someone who assaulted a police officer, admitted their guilt, ​got convicted, got pardoned and now we’re going to pay them for that? That’s absurd,” said Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

(Reporting by Jasper Ward in Washington; Editing by Stephen Coates)

source

By Nolan D. McCaskill and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, May 27 (Reuters) – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton decisively defeated longtime Senator John Cornyn in Tuesday’s Republican runoff for U.S. Senate, handing President Donald Trump a high-profile victory and giving Democrats the matchup they had long preferred in Texas.

While the result was a personal win for Trump, who endorsed Paxton at the 11th hour, it risks endangering Republicans’ narrow Senate majority.

Here are five takeaways:

CORNYN IS NOW A WILD CARD

The endorsement of Paxton put Trump at odds with Senate Republican Leader John Thune and Senator Tim Scott, who chairs the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm.

Unburdened by another reelection campaign, Cornyn for the remainder of his term this year could become another free agent like retiring Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who blocked Kevin Warsh’s nomination as Federal Reserve chair, or Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who lost a runoff in his state’s primary and voted with Democrats last week to advance an Iran war powers resolution.

Cornyn now joins that group of senators, though it’s unclear whether a former member of Republican leadership would buck Trump on his way out of office after tying his campaign closely to the president.

PAXTON HAS A MONEY PROBLEM

In his victory speech on Tuesday, Paxton implored supporters to donate through his campaign website, warning them that his opponent, state Representative James Talarico, will “raise more money than any Democrat in America.”

The candidates’ most recent financial reports showed Paxton with $2.3 million in the bank in early May and Talarico with $9.9 million on hand in early April.

In an internal memo last year, Senate Republicans’ campaign arm warned that a Paxton nomination could “cause Republicans to divert hundreds of millions that would otherwise be spent winning key battlegrounds.”

Now that Paxton’s won, it’s unclear where that money would come from. Senate Republicans’ primary super PAC, Senate Leadership Fund, did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did MAGA Inc, Trump’s $356 million super PAC.

“This is the wrong election to have someone who’s as weak of a nominee as Paxton up against someone who’s as strong a fundraiser as Talarico,” one Texas political consultant said, predicting that ultimately, “MAGA Inc. will have to step in.” 

TEXAS IS GETTING MORE COMPETITIVE

Cook Political Report and Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics shifted their ratings for the Texas Senate race from “likely Republican” to “lean Republican,” validating the sentiment that Paxton is a weaker nominee than Cornyn.

Trump won Texas by nearly 14 points in 2024, but now Republicans will have to spend millions in what promises to be a bruising campaign to save what was once a safe seat.

A Talarico campaign memo released Wednesday frames him as “the best positioned candidate in a generation to win Texas.” He described Paxton as “the most corrupt and damaged nominee in the modern Texas GOP,” a reference to his felony indictment, Texas House impeachment, allegations of corruption and reports of extramarital affairs.

Paxton and his allies have signaled they will attack Talarico on culture-war issues, including his defense of transgender children, describing God as nonbinary, prior “non‑meat campaign” in which it purchased only vegan products and comments suggesting there are more than two biological sexes.

An ad released on Wednesday also seized on Talarico likening the border to a “front porch” with “a giant welcome mat.”

OTHER SENATE BATTLEGROUNDS AT RISK

In the Senate, Republicans hold a 53-47 advantage, and Democrats would need to net four seats to win control.

Democrats are defending two states Trump won in 2024 – Georgia and Michigan – and targeting Republican-held states such as North Carolina, Maine, Ohio and Alaska.

Lauren French, a spokesperson for the Democratic group Senate Majority PAC, said Republicans will likely have a “tough conversation” over which battleground states they might need to divert resources from.

In North Carolina, former Governor Roy Cooper is running against former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley to succeed Tillis, who’s retiring. And in Ohio, former Senator Sherrod Brown is challenging incumbent Republican Senator Jon Husted. Both races are considered toss-ups and will be key to whoever wins the Senate in November.

“Will it be less in North Carolina, where their candidate is already down?” French asked. “Less in Ohio, where they put an astronomical amount of money signaling their concern over Husted?”

PAXTON DOMINATED A LOW-TURNOUT RACE

Trump might see the Paxton victory as validation that he picked a winner, but the set of general election voters will be dramatically different from the narrow Republican runoff electorate.

Paxton benefited from a low-turnout runoff, winning fewer than 900,000 votes. That was well below turnout in the March Republican and Democratic primaries. More than 2 million Democrats voted, including over a million for Talarico. 

Without Trump on the ballot, some voters could stay home in the fall or leave the top of the ticket blank as Talarico courts independents and more moderate Republicans.

(Reporting by Nolan D. McCaskill and Richard Cowan; Editing by Michael Learmonth and Cynthia Osterman)

source

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, May 27 (Reuters) – Alabama officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to let the state use a pro-Republican congressional map erasing one of its two districts where Black voters comprise a majority or near-majority, as President Donald Trump’s party fights to keep control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

The request followed a lower court’s decision on Tuesday to block the latest effort by state officials to put in place a redrawn map that aims to flip a U.S. House of Representatives district currently held by a Black Democratic congressman to the Republicans.

Black voters typically support Democratic candidates. Republicans are defending narrow majorities in the House and Senate in the midterms.

Alabama Republicans asked the Supreme Court to lift the judicial block put in place on Tuesday by a federal three-judge panel that found the Republican-backed map likely discriminated against Black voters and could not be used for the 2026 elections.

The Alabama Republicans argued in their filing to the justices that voters would face “irreparable harm” if the state is required to use a map approved by the lower court instead of theirs.

“Worse still, voters will be forced to vote under a court-drawn racially gerrymandered map that does not meet Alabama’s legitimate districting goals,” they wrote.

Gerrymandering involves the manipulation of the geographical boundaries of electoral districts to marginalize a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others.

The request by Alabama came amid a new and frenzied round of congressional redistricting that has unfolded across the South, as Republican-led states have scrambled to take advantage of an April Supreme Court decision that severely weakened the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law intended to prevent discrimination in voting.

Tennessee already has approved a new map that broke up a majority-Black, Democratic-held district based in Memphis, while Louisiana is advancing a plan to eliminate one of two districts with sizable Black populations in that state.

In a rare break with Trump by members of his own party, however, several Republican state senators in South Carolina voted with Democrats on Tuesday to abandon a new map aimed at dismantling the U.S. House district held by congressman James Clyburn, a Black Democrat first elected to the seat more than three decades ago.

Litigation over Alabama’s congressional map has ricocheted between the Supreme Court and the federal three-judge panel in recent years.

Republican state legislators are trying to return to a map they approved in 2023 that the same three-judge panel previously had deemed discriminatory. That map would drop the number of districts where Black voters comprise a majority or near-majority from two to one out of the state’s seven U.S. House districts. Black people make up about a quarter of Alabama’s population.

On May 11, the Supreme Court granted the state’s request to lift the lower court’s prior ruling blocking Alabama from using the map.

In a dissent, the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices suggested that the three-judge panel could reapply its judicial block to the map preferred by Alabama Republicans, which would dismantle a U.S. House district currently represented by congressman Shomari Figures, who is Black. The three-judge panel on Tuesday did exactly that, prompting Alabama officials to go to the Supreme Court.

In a process called redistricting, the boundaries of legislative districts across the United States are reconfigured to reflect population changes as measured by the national U.S. census every 10 years. Redistricting traditionally has been carried out by state legislatures at the start of each new decade, making the mid-decade redistricting fight now unfolding highly unusual.

Trump ignited the current battle last year by pushing Republican-governed Texas to redraw its electoral map in a bid to ​flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, setting off similar efforts in a number of other Republican- and Democratic-led states.

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)

source

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump gathered with his Cabinet on Wednesday at a precarious moment for talks aimed at ending the war with Iran and asserted that the Iranian side is “negotiating on fumes.”

Trump confidence that a deal is near comes just days after he insisted that his administration and Tehran had “largely negotiated” a settlement but with the negotiations still in a state of flux.

The president is looking for a settlement that will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and provide him a credible argument that Iran’s nuclear capability has been diminished enough to declare victory, winding down a conflict that’s been politically unpopular for Republicans.

The emerging deal puts off many critical issues to be resolved later and has already exposed the Republican president to fierce criticism — even from some of his own supporters — that Iran’s hard-line leaders will emerge from the conflict battered but emboldened. It all comes to a head just as the midterm elections to determine control of Congress come into focus and as Republicans worry that rising costs and fuel prices are darkening the American electorate’s mood.

Trump at the start of his Cabinet meeting said there’s still work needed to get a deal done, but he spoke with a measure of certainty that the two sides would get there.

“They want very much to make a deal,” Trump said. “So far, they haven’t gotten there. We’re not satisfied with it, but we will be — either that or we’ll have to just finish the job.”

But talks were further complicated after U.S. forces carried out what the Pentagon called “defensive” strikes on missile launch sites and mine-laying boats in southern Iran on Monday. The U.S. said it acted with “restraint” in light of the weekslong ceasefire, while Iran decried the action as a sign of “bad faith and unreliability.”

While Trump insists a deal is within reach, there appears to be daylight between the U.S. and Iran on several key issues. The president is also facing scrutiny from Republican allies, including Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas, who have said the terms seem too favorable to Tehran.

They’re balking at aspects of the deal that have emerged publicly that they say too closely resemble the nuclear agreement reached with Iran by Democratic President Barack Obama, which Trump scrapped during his first term.

Under the potential deal, Tehran would agree to give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium — a key Trump demand — in return for sanctions relief. That’s according to two regional officials and one senior Trump administration official, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive negotiations.

One regional official, with direct knowledge of the negotiations, said how Iran would give up the uranium would be subject to further talks during a 60-day period. Some would likely be diluted, while the rest would be transferred to a third country, the official said.

Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran has not publicly committed to giving up its uranium.

Trump on Monday said in a Truth Social post that the uranium, which is believed to be buried under nuclear sites battered by U.S. airstrikes last year, would either be turned over to the U.S. or “destroyed in place or, at another acceptable location, with the Atomic Energy Commission, or its equivalent, being witness to this process and event.” The comment signals a softening of Trump’s previous insistence that the U.S. take control of Iran’s uranium stockpile.

Another key issue unresolved is whether the ceasefire will also cover Israel’s operations against Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group in Lebanon. Iran has insisted that Lebanon must be covered by any ceasefire agreement negotiated with the United States.

The administration appears to leave some wiggle room on the Lebanon question. The emerging memorandum of understanding calls for a ceasefire between the U.S. and its allies against Iran and its proxies, such as Hezbollah, but also underscores Israel’s right to act against imminent threats and in self-defense.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday announced that the Israeli military is “deepening its operation” in Lebanon. Overnight, Israel’s military clashed with the Iran-backed militant Hezbollah group along a strategic river in southern Lebanon as Israeli troops pushed farther north.

Jonathan Conricus, a former spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, said Israel expects that Iran would quickly move to direct any sanctions relief to restore its military capability and boost proxy groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza.

“We’re not done fighting, because the Iranian regime isn’t done,” said Conricus, who is a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.

Trump on Monday said any agreement to end the Iran war should include a requirement for several additional countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan, to join the Abraham Accords, the U.S.-brokered agreements from Trump’s first term aimed at normalizing diplomatic and economic relations with Israel.

Trump’s optimism that the other Middle Eastern and majority Muslim countries could soon sign on to the accords might be overly ambitious.

For example, Saudi Arabia, the most significant power in the Arab world and long seen as the biggest prize for the normalization effort, has insisted that establishing a guaranteed path to a Palestinian state remains a precondition. It’s something that Israel vehemently opposes.

Trump made the Abraham Accords push during a call with leaders of Mideast allies over the weekend.

President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House, Wednesday, May 27, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

source

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Win or lose, billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer will leave a mark in the history books in his bid to become California’s next governor — he’s running the most expensive political advertising campaign in the country this year.

Steyer — a former hedge fund manager turned liberal activist — has spent or booked more than $195 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio with the tally still growing, according to data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact.

His torrent of ads has opened the one-time presidential candidate to criticism that he is trying to buy the governor’s chair, and his ad total represents more than 20 times the amount spent by his nearest rival, fellow Democrat Xavier Becerra, as the two duel for a spot in the November election.

Nationally, his spending is unparalleled — no one is even close.

In Georgia, Republican health care executive Rick Jackson has spent about $83 million on advertising in his primary race for governor, which is headed for a June runoff, ranking him second. The third place spot is held by his Republican rival, Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who has President Donald Trump’s endorsement and has spent nearly $31 million on ads, according to AdImpact.

Following Jones was Democratic U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, who spent over $28 million on advertising in a failed bid for U.S. Senate.

Katie Porter, a former U.S. House member who is among seven established Democrats in the California race, has repeatedly criticized Steyer for dipping into his personal fortune to keep ads in front of voters with scant competition from rivals.

“She isn’t spending hundreds of millions of dollars of personal wealth trying to buy the governor’s office,” her campaign wrote in an email to supporters.

In raw numbers, Steyer’s ad blitz has eclipsed the 2010 record set by Republican Meg Whitman, who spent $178.5 million in total on a losing bid for governor, much of it her own money. At the time, it was the costliest campaign for statewide office in the nation’s history. When adjusted for inflation, however, Whitman still holds the state record, but that represented spending for the full election, not just the primary.

Steyer’s record-level output has lifted him into contention in the crowded race, but he’s not breaking away from the field. He’s among a leading group of several candidates — including Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton — as the campaign heads toward a June 2 primary. Mail voting started earlier this month.

Still, Steyer’s cash advantage is giving him a publicity edge as the contest enters its crucial final days. He’s maintained a steady flow of advertising and online posts questioning Becerra’s credentials and record, with Becerra, a former state attorney general and Biden administration health secretary, lacking the funds to reply in kind.

One Becerra ad sought to connect with voters who might be getting bleary-eyed from the cascade of Steyer advertising. It used tranquil scenes of Joshua trees, waves curling on a beach and soaring redwoods, with a gentle prod: “You can stop the endless Tom Steyer ads. Vote Xavier Becerra.”

Steyer’s financial edge has allowed him to stretch the boundaries of his campaign far beyond traditional TV and radio ads, with steady posts on online platforms like YouTube and Instagram. The New York Times reported that his campaign paid a progressive Texas influencer $100,000 to help Steyer win the election. The Sacramento Bee reported that Becerra, too, had hired an influencer.

In a statement, Steyer spokesperson Kevin Liao did not directly address the campaign’s spending but pointed to millions of dollars pumped into ads by independent groups backed by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., real estate agents and others seeking to defeat the billionaire, who has promised to “break up the electric monopolies in California.”

Many voters have been slow to vote in a race without a star candidate and no clear leader. More than 50 names will be on the ballot. California uses a “top two” primary system that puts all candidates on one ballot, with only the top two vote-getters advancing to November, regardless of party.

“In a race this close, it all matters,” said Democratic consultant Andrew Acosta.

History shows that money doesn’t always translate into votes.

Billionaire developer Rick Caruso spent over $100 million in 2022 in his bid to become Los Angeles mayor, much of it his own money, but he was handily defeated by Mayor Karen Bass, who spent a fraction of Caruso’s total. Billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent more than $1 billion of his own money on his 2020 presidential bid before dropping out. And Steyer’s money was unable to lift him into contention in the 2020 presidential contest, from which he dropped out early in the year after a poor finish in the South Carolina primary.

Democratic San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan’s campaign for governor was supported by independent committees bankrolled by millions of dollars from tech leaders and venture capitalists, yet he failed to gain traction in the race.

Steyer has never held elected office.

In a 2019 interview with The Associated Press, Steyer was asked what he would say to people who think he’s trying to buy the presidency.

“I don’t think that’s possible,” Steyer said at the time, before adding, “I’m never going to apologize for succeeding in business. That’s America, right?”

The contest is unfolding as California struggles with a long-running homeless crisis, wildfire insurance shortages, projected budget shortfalls and housing costs that are out of reach for many working-class families. Voters, meanwhile, are saddled with growing everyday bills for groceries, utilities and gas.

The AdImpact data does not include ads on some popular streaming services, like Hulu and YouTube, or mail advertising.

source

A frenzied redistricting effort ahead of the November elections has reshaped congressional voting districts for millions of Americans — and it isn’t over yet.

Since President Donald Trump urged Texas Republicans to redraw U.S. House districts last year, Republicans in Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee also have enacted new maps that could help the party win additional seats in the midterm elections. Louisiana is expected to join those ranks soon, and Alabama Republicans are appealing a court decision blocking a map they support.

So far, Republicans think they could gain as many as 14 seats from their redistricting efforts while Democrats think they could gain six seats from new districts in California and Utah.

Trump hopes the unusual mid-decade redistricting can help Republicans retain control of the closely divided House, despite negative approval ratings and historical tendencies for the incumbent’s party to lose seats in the midterms.

Here’s a look at the latest developments in the redistricting battle:

The U.S. Supreme Court in April struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, which contains two majority-Black districts held by Democrats, as an illegal racial gerrymander. That prompted Republican Gov. Jeff Landry to postpone Louisiana’s May 16 congressional primary until later this summer to allow time for redistricting.

The state House is expected to consider a revised congressional map this week that gives Republicans an improved chance at winning one of those two seats. The Senate already passed a different version of the new map. The two chambers are trying to agree on a redistricting plan before the June 1 end of their legislative session.

Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said he is appealing a preliminary injunction issued Tuesday by a federal judicial panel that prevents the state from using a Republican-drawn House map in the midterm elections.

The judges said the plan, which includes only one majority-Black district, “intentionally discriminated based on race.” They ordered the state to continue using a court-imposed map containing two districts where Black residents compose a majority or close to it. Both of those seats currently are held by Democrats.

The Missouri Supreme Court already has rejected two challenges to a new U.S. House map that gives Republicans an improved chance to win another seat by reshaping a Democratic-held district based in Kansas City.

Judges are to hear arguments Wednesday in a third challenge claiming that no extraordinary circumstances existed for Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe to call lawmakers into a special session on redistricting last year.

As early in-person voting began Tuesday in South Carolina’s June 9 primaries, the Republican-led state Senate put an end to an effort to redraw the state’s congressional districts this year. A plan previously passed by the House sought to redraw the state’s only Democratic-held district to give Republicans a better chance at winning it.

But some Republicans senators said it was too late to make make any changes. Others expressed reservations that the plan could backfire by adding in too many Democratic voters in districts held by Republicans.

Voting rights groups contend Florida’s new congressional districts should be struck down for violating a state ban on intentional partisan gerrymandering. But a state judge on Tuesday declined to issue a preliminary injunction against using the map in the midterm elections.

The judge said the plaintiffs hadn’t shown their claims of partisanship are likely to succeed. Voting rights groups said they were quickly appealing the case to a higher court, and would continue pursuing the case all the way to the state Supreme Court, if necessary.

A federal court on Tuesday declined to issue a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit contending that Tennessee’s new U.S. House districts are racially discriminatory. The new Republican-drawn map carves up a majority-Black district in Memphis — a city where more than half of its population is Black — giving Republicans an improved chance to win the state’s only Democratic-held seat.

The case is one of several brought against the map that are making their way through the court system.

source