After Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., failed to advance to the general election for the U.S. Senate in California, her statement thanking her supporters on X included one particularly striking sentence: “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.” You might’ve spotted the word in there that caused a tsunami of controversy. Liberal commentators slammed Porter for using the word “rig,” a term former President Donald Trump commonly deploys to undermine trust in the U.S. election system.
But Porter then doubled down with another statement Thursday: “‘Rigged’ means manipulated by dishonest means.” She argued the word is warranted because she faced attack ads that made false accusations against her and because “big dark money” was sloshing around in her race. She said she wasn’t criticizing California’s election system, which she described as “beyond reproach.” Critics have swarmed her second statement, as well, and described it as sour grapes.
I’m of two minds about this.
Some of the criticism of Porter is fair. The common understanding of the word “rig” in the context of politics is that it means to illegally cheat, or, in this instance, to fix California’s Senate primary so Porter couldn’t win. But none of Porter’s grievances reach that threshold.
Sadly, Porter’s language implies that she was uniquely targeted by certain forces when, in reality, she faced the same forces that are involved in every major political race in America.
Porter’s complaint about being outspent on television ads is likely a veiled reference to ads from one of her Democratic competitors, Rep. Adam Schiff. Schiff’s ads raised the profile of Republican opponent Steve Garvey and may have helped box Porter out of the runoff. California has a nonpartisan primary system in which all candidates vie to garner the most votes in the same primary, and the top two candidates advance to a runoff regardless of party. Schiff wanted to run against Garvey; that is, an opponent who should be easier to beat in a deeply blue state. Porter previously disparaged Schiff’s ads as “cynical.”) That kind of politicking can look ugly, but it’s an established electoral strategy, and it’s part of the game.
Porter also argues that she was targeted by misleading advertising. Ads that lie about candidates are dishonorable, but this is a problem endemic to political races, and federal regulations effectively allow them.
She also laments the influence of billionaires and “dark money”; that is, political spending from undisclosed donors. But their interventions in races are completely legal.
Sadly, Porter’s language implies that she was uniquely targeted by certain forces when, in reality, she faced the same forces that are involved in every major political race in America.
All that being said, some criticisms of Porter’s language are wrong, including the criticism that she shouldn’t use the word “rig” simply because Trump uses it. Context matters. Specificity matters. Porter says in her statements that she’s not talking about the electoral system but about interventions from moneyed interests. The claim that, because of Trump, “rig” is forever poisoned is in fact a radical position, and it is not persuasive. There’s an important reason to be open to Porter’s use of the term. Even if one were to argue that in this specific political moment, “rigged” is tainted (as opposed to, say, “stacked against”), the concept is essential for illuminating our crises. Our political systems are structurally designed to advantage the ultra-wealthy and their distinct political and economic interests. And the flow of money in our political system does unfairly constrain policy debate. Mainstream Democrats have admitted for some time that the “economy is rigged” to favor and help pool the resources of the rich. It naturally follows, and has been documented by political scientists, that a political system in which unlimited money can be spent to shape the outcome of a race is effectively rigged in the rich’s favor, as well. In this case, for example, Porter’s progressive economic views are partially why she was the target of well-financed attacks from the crypto industry. Porter was a candidate in a rigged election only insofar as all elections in America favor powerful and moneyed interests and make democracy less representative of those who are working-class or poor. Porter’s specific characterization of the problem was sloppy and self-serving. But the unfairness she called out is something we must think about if we have any chance at obtaining a real democracy.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. 
