As Governor Gavin Newsom wraps up his second term as California’s governor, a packed field of candidates has set their eyes on the state’s top executive seat. In a race that carries immense implications for power and influence, not just in California but nationwide, candidates must prove they are ready to reshape the future of one of America’s most-watched states. In this column, I aim not only to examine the candidates running but to unpack their campaigns and policies, offering a holistic assessment of their ability to govern the Golden State. This installment focuses on former U.S. Representative Katie Porter’s campaign.
“At a time when President Trump and his allies are attacking Californians’ health care and making their lives more expensive, Katie is the proven leader California needs,” said Jessica Mackler in a statement to the HPR. Mackler has endorsed Katie Porter’s campaign as the President of EMILYs List, a political action committee (PAC) dedicated to supporting the election of Democratic pro-choice women to office.
As a single mother raising three children in Irvine, California, Katie Porter prides herself on understanding the economic challenges facing Californians. A graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School, she has served as the representative of both the 45th and 47th Districts in California and taught at the University of California, Irvine. With this background in mind, Katie Porter demonstrates a strong understanding of both the political landscape of California and the lived experiences of its residents, as a Californian herself. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren endorsed her, saying she knew from the start of her consumer law class that Porter would be “a warrior for working families.”
Porter’s campaign stands out due to her lack of corporate sponsors, something rather uncommon in modern politics. Her commitment emphasizes her prioritization of constituents over corporate donors, powerful industry groups, or personal gain. Evidently, this stance shapes her policy work: she has written laws that save patients money on health insurance and emphasize affordable healthcare, economic and climate policy, and housing. Her run encapsulates many Democratic priorities, but is she the leader Democrats are searching for?
According to Porter’s campaign website, she “took on Trump’s attempts to expand drilling off our coasts” and “fought to ensure oil companies to clean up the damaging leaks caused by their conduct.” While a record of climate-focused action and exposure of big business oil spills has shown her commitment to climate policy, much of this “priority” — and many others described in her campaign — are focused on being anti-Trump. In reference to his climate policy, she states, “Trump is restarting his extreme pro-polluter agenda” and affirms that she will fight against this agenda for California. Trump has low approval ratings in California, and this seems to be an issue that resonates with many Californians. However, I worry that Porter is making a broad sweep to appeal to democratic voters through shared hatred without a real intention to do anything.
I’m similarly apprehensive about Porter’s approach to economic policy. Porter says she will “rein in costs for Californians,” but how will she do that? How will her economic promises differ from those of every other candidate? In her commentary on what she will do for California’s economy, she says she will “fight Trump Administration policies like counterproductive tariffs.” This could be helpful for California’s economic recovery in these difficult times, but what many anti-Trump candidates are neglecting to acknowledge is that California’s economy was failing before Trump was in office, with poverty rates having been reported to be as high as 21.7% in 2011. It seems that what Californians need might not be someone who hates Trump but someone who can get to the root of these problems.
Porter does comment on addressing economic disparities through her support of businesses and workers. She aims to “fight for sustainable good paying union jobs” and support training for these workers to give them the best advantage. Her background in business law further highlights her expertise in this area. I do wonder, though, if workforce training is enough on its own or if it needs to be paired with collaboration between policymakers and the large tech companies developing AI — especially as AI is being incorporated into more and more jobs. This training would help prepare them for a changing world that reflects Porter’s priorities surrounding corporate accountability and economic fairness.
However, preparing workers to adapt to rapidly evolving technologies may require working with the same corporations that Porter critiques and refuses aid from. This highlights a tension between her efforts to hold powerful companies accountable and the practical need to work with them in shaping workforce readiness. Sal Roselli, founder of the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), even commented to the HPR that he endorsed her partly because she is the only candidate who has never accepted corporate money, emphasizing how powerful her refusal of corporate funds is, both for supporters and opposition.
Rosselli, who supports her healthcare policy, said in an interview with the HPR that the NUHW is confident that, in coalition with other unions, they can get Porter to implement legislation that will “eventually get us to a single Medicare for All system” that will make California “an example for the rest of the country.” According to Rosselli, Porter supports their vision of prioritizing nonprofit hospitals — over ones like Kaiser who she has notably spoken out against — that give the proper care and attention to patients.
At the state level, creating a Medicare for All system — a government-run health insurance system that covers all residents — is ambitious to say the least, but its immense undertaking does not mean that it is not worth fighting for. However, reducing reliance on systems like Kaiser could limit efficiency, scale, and access. Instead of criticizing corporations altogether, perhaps what Porter needs is to find a less extremist middle ground that works with these businesses to improve healthcare access in California.
With more than half of Porter’s priorities being on the economy, she might be sidelining other issues in California for ones that just Democrats focus on. She emphasizes building more housing to invest in future generations and keep Californians off our streets, but these seem like broad Democratic ideals that appeal to a majority blue state. With years of past Democratic governors prioritizing similar issues, I have yet to see an unconventional approach that integrates less traditionally Democratic policy focuses in ways that benefit more than California’s economy. For example, California’s violent crime rates have increased by 9.8% since 2019, but according to Porter’s website, safety isn’t listed as a priority. This emphasis on economic fairness over other essential policies is especially visible in her strong stance against corporate influence.
Her extreme opposition toward corporations has earned her enemies, such as Fairshake, a super PAC supported by the cryptocurrency industry. During her 2024 Senate campaign, they spent $10 million on opposition ads because of her stance that the energy required to create crypto was harmful to the environment. They targeted her directly for challenging their vision of innovation. Porter’s response to these ads was that her fight was never really about crypto but rather about opposing “ultra-wealthy billionaires who don’t want someone to go to Washington who will focus on making our economy more fair.” Her efforts to bridge the economic divide are commendable, but pushing too hard against billionaires might make it harder to gain their support for practical solutions.
That pushback against powerful economic leaders mirrors a broader pattern in how Porter’s outspokenness is perceived by the public. During a series of incidents in 2024, Porter faced criticism that underscores how women in politics are often judged more harshly for being assertive. She faced backlash during a CBS News Sacramento interview, where, when asked about the 40% of Californians who voted for Trump whom she might need in her bid for governor, she looked visibly upset, even asking the reporter, “How would I need them in order to win, ma’am?” She drew similar criticism last year after a video from 2021 resurfaced. It showed her yelling at a staffer who interrupted a meeting she was taping for the Biden administration, telling them to “Get out of my f****** shot.” These incidents have left voters questioning whether Porter’s sharp demeanor crosses the line from assertive to abrasive. At the same time, many also question whether the criticism is amplified because she is a woman, highlighting the double standards for women in politics.
Ultimately, Porter emerges as a candidate who has a clear vision for economic fairness and worker empowerment. Yet, her focus on opposing corporations and her sharp and sometimes uncompromising demeanor raise questions about her ability to form the wide-ranging alliances needed to govern effectively. While her policies and priorities signal a commitment to addressing California’s economic and social divides, the challenge for her campaign will be demonstrating that passion and toughness can translate into both actionable and inclusive solutions for the state as a whole — not just Democrats.
