Yue Stella Yu, CalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters, nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Adam Schiff has likely punched his ticket to the U.S. Senate.

Placing first in California’s top-two primary as of Thursday, the Democratic U.S. representative is heading into the November election against former L.A. Dodgers legend Steve Garvey — the Republican in second place, but a long shot at winning a California statewide election.

The Associated Press declared the Schiff-Garvey matchup with 38% of the expected votes counted Tuesday night.

In his victory speech, Schiff thanked his supporters and touted Republicans’ criticism of him. “It looks like we are going to the general, ladies and gentlemen,” Schiff told cheering supporters in Los Angeles.

But his speech was interrupted by protesters calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Faced with “Ceasefire Now” chants, Schiff responded: “We are so lucky, so lucky to live in a democracy where we all have the right to protest.”

In the separate primary to serve out the final few weeks of Feinstein’s term, Garvey is narrowly leading Schiff as of Wednesday night.

The matchup is good news for Schiff, whose campaign shelled out tens of millions of dollars elevating Garvey’s name among Republican voters to make sure of that outcome. The ad blitz helped shut out progressive Democratic Rep. Katie Porter, who could have posed a formidable threat to Schiff in the general election.

Some Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief, too: They had worried that a Schiff-Porter matchup would suck up campaign cash from Democratic donors, potentially leaving few dollars to down-ballot candidates, particularly those in battleground congressional districts who could determine control of Congress, Politico reported. But now, Schiff could spread his wealth to benefit Democrats in those races, political strategists say.

Garvey celebrated with supporters in Palm Desert on Tuesday night. “Welcome to the California comeback. What you are all feeling tonight is what it’s like to hit a walk-off home run,” he opened his victory speech.

“Keep the evening of November 5th open, as we will celebrate again,” Garvey added. “They say in the general election that we are going to strike out. You know what? That’s from the crowd that believes in the status quo.”

But Garvey’s primary win has likely set him up for a loss in November: There are not enough Republican voters — or GOP donors — in California to propel him to victory, and no national GOP groups will invest much in winning a statewide seat in deep-blue California, said Republican strategist Jon Fleischman.

“The math doesn’t make sense to try to win California at the expense of spending all that money on states where they can be a lot more competitive,” he said.

The matchup, however, dismayed progressive supporters of Porter, in third place with 15% of the vote Tuesday night, and Lee, in fourth place with 7%.

Porter told supporters in Long Beach that special interests and billionaires spent millions to keep her out of the U.S. Senate and that too many in power just want to stay in elected office. “I will always, always be fighting for you,” she said in ending her concession speech Tuesday night.

The Schiff-Garvey runoff means that, for the first time in more than 30 years, California will be represented by two male senators (Alex Padilla was elected in 2022), one of whom will be white.

“We have two old white men in this incredibly diverse and dynamic state … fighting to replace Dianne Feinstein’s seat,” said Thad Kousser, professor of political science at the University of California San Diego. “This looks like your grandfather’s California.”

Charlene Bennett, a 57-year-old Lee supporter who works as a manager in the state government, said she wanted to see a woman of color win the seat.

“I don’t think it’s just enough to say, ‘I support women,’” Bennett said after voting at the downtown Sacramento public library. “When we talk about women’s rights, reproductive rights, we need to have a woman there in the moment when decisions are happening.”

Formidable fundraiser

Schiff, the most prolific fundraiser in this race, spent $38 million to both secure his own spot in the general and effectively handpick his opponent in November. What lies ahead for him is likely a clear path to victory: In deep-blue California, no Republican has won a statewide race since 2006.

He can now spend some of his campaign war chest on Democrats in California’s down-ballot races, or on Senate candidates in more challenging states, such as Sen. Jacky Rosen in Nevada, said Democratic strategist Michael Trujillo.

“The Senate side is gonna get to see how Adam can fundraise and get his donors engaged in other swing seats that keep the Senate for Democrats,” he said.

The fundraising power he could use to benefit other Democrats would help establish him as a “national Democratic leader,” Kousser said.

“He’s shown that he’s one of the fundraising stars of his party. And once you secure your seat, you’ve got to use that star power to help your team rather than just yourself,” he said.

Butting heads on Trump, other policies

Former President Donald Trump’s influence has loomed large in the race, and may be here to stay.

Schiff has fundraised off Trump’s name, touting his role leading the first impeachment trial against Trump in 2020. He has cashed in on Trump’s attacks on him and the vote by a Republican-controlled House to censure Schiff over his comment during investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia.

On Tuesday, he wore it as a badge of honor.

“At the urging and badgering of Donald Trump, the Republicans censured me for holding him accountable,” he said during his victory speech. “And then Trump would attack me rally after rally. And I think all those things were basically what we would call Wednesday.”

That record gained him votes among Democratic voters in this race. Ben James, a 38-year-old hotel engineering manager in Sacramento, said that was the main reason he chose Schiff over Porter.

“We have to do anything we can to prevent (Trump’s presidency) from happening again,” James said.

Garvey — who said he voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 — has so far declined to say whether he would support Trump in November, arguing it’s his “personal choice.” But Schiff’s campaign has portrayed Garvey as a far right candidate associated with Trump in his ad blitz.

“All people know about him is that he stands with Trump, because that’s what the Adam Schiff commercials will make it look like,” Kousser said.

Garvey’s vague stance on Trump, however, has not hurt his chances with Republicans, Kousser noted.

While some Republican candidates in California can’t afford to criticize Trump due to their deep-red base, in a statewide race, “you can’t win a general election in California as the Donald Trump candidate,” he said.

Schiff and Garvey will likely continue to clash on multiple other issues in the next eight months, such as the U.S.-Mexico border, homelessness, immigration, climate change and the economy. In CBS exit polls, primary voters picked the cost of living as the most important issue facing California, followed by immigration and homelessness.

Garvey has called for a shutdown of the southern border, arguing that the country should prioritize legal immigration and curb drug and human trafficking. Schiff, on the contrary, has advocated for more resources for migrants at the border and disagreed with President Joe Biden’s administration on tightened asylum policies, calling them “wrong.”

The two are split on the federal minimum wage, with Schiff calling for a $20 hourly rate indexed to inflation and Garvey supporting the current $7.25. They have also taken different tones on fossil fuel energy in California. Schiff said he supports moving away from fossil fuel energy, while Garvey stressed during debates that the country “runs on gas and oil.”

Invigorating GOP voters?

Garvey’s presence on the ballot — broadcast statewide thanks to Schiff’s ads — could have driven up GOP turnout and helped down-ticket Republican candidates, Fleischman said.

“Adam Schiff’s strategy may send him into the runoff against Steve Garvey, but it might also elect some Republicans down ticket that he didn’t intend,” he said.

But will Garvey’s presence be enough to energize GOP voters in the general election? Unlikely, since the single biggest driver of turnout remains the presidential race, not a U.S. Senate election, political experts say.

“We are going to forget that this race is even on the ballot come November,” Kousser said.

But Garvey’s message and vision could find its audience with some voters, who are looking for a different brand of Republican Party, Kousser said.

“If Steve Garvey … articulates that vision, especially if that vision can change the Republican brand in some people’s minds from the party of Donald Trump to … a party of Steve Garvey and other people like him, that can help start the long-term project of getting the Republicans back.”

At the very least, Garvey’s name on the November ticket keeps Republican consultants employed until November, Trujillo joked. “It’s the Bipartisan Full Employment Act,” he said.

‘Referendum’ on top two?

The Schiff-Garvey matchup was not quite what the authors of California’s top-two primary system wanted to produce, Kousser said.

“One of the strong hopes for the top two was that it was supposed to bring moderation and make races competitive all the way through to November by getting us away from having a Democrat versus a Republican,” he said.

“But in race after race after race, we’re just seeing a Democrat versus a Republican, and it’s game over by the spring.”

Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias argued in a Sunday commentary that the top-two system “led to chaos and gamesmanship.”

Trujillo disagreed, arguing it is unfair to use this Senate race as “a referendum on the top two.”

“I think it’s very short-sighted to just look at the U.S. Senate race as the prime example,” he said. “Obviously, it’s a big example, but it’s working the way it’s supposed to in every single legislative and congressional race that we have.”

For election results and analysis of the 2024 primary in California, sign up for CalMatters’ free daily newsletter WhatMatters.

CalMatters reporters Jeanne Kuang and Lynn La contributed to this story.

This story was originally published by CalMatters, nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

In northwest Los Angeles, a 15-square-mile enclave sits at the foot of the Santa Monica Mountains. Tucked between Bel Air and the ridges, the neighborhood is where nature, art and wealth concentrate: It boasts both the Getty Museum and the Skirball Cultural Center.

It is also home to the most generous donors in California’s 2024 U.S. Senate race.

Welcome to ZIP code 90049 — an area in Brentwood churning out more campaign cash for Senate candidates this year than any other California ZIP code, according to a CalMatters analysis of itemized federal campaign finance data for individual donors who have contributed more than $200 this year.

As of Sept. 30, more than 170 donors who live there had collectively contributed roughly $300,000 to U.S. Senate candidates, with $283,000 — 97% — going to three prominent Democrats: U.S. Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland, Katie Porter of Irvine and Adam Schiff of Burbank.

The three have been top fundraisers in the race to succeed the late U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, hauling in a total of $35 million from individuals, political action committees and other groups by the end of September. Schiff entered October with $32 million in the bank — more than all his opponents combined — while Porter had $12 million and Lee, $1.3 million.

With Feinstein’s death in late September, there will be two simultaneous contests in the March 5 primary and Nov. 5 general election — one for the final two months of her term and the other for a full six-year term. That also means that candidate campaigns can collect twice the maximum amount from each individual donor — a total of $6,600.

The current officeholder, Laphonza Butler, appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, announced earlier this month that she won’t run next year to try to keep the seat. That means it’s the first open race for one of California’s U.S. Senate seats since Feinstein was first elected in 1992. And it will be awash in campaign cash.

Schiff is the most popular candidate among donors who live in 90049: They gave his campaign roughly $200,000 this year — more than he received anywhere else in the state. Porter netted $76,000 and Lee $6,700 from the same area.

The ZIP code was also the most active in political contributions as the 2020 presidential race was heating up in fall 2019, contributing at least $1.3 million by Sept. 30 that year. Vice President Kamala Harris — then California’s junior U.S. senator — received $300,000 from the area, more than any of her primary opponents.

And Greater Los Angeles — the second-most populous urban center in the United States — consistently ranks among metro areas generating the most campaign contributions, according to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan nonprofit research group, based in Washington, D.C., that tracks money in U.S. politics and that is assisting CalMatters in analyzing the U.S. Senate money race.

So far, donors in the city of Los Angeles have made at least $1.6 million in contributions — more than any other city in the state, data shows. And of the top 20 California ZIP codes contributing the most amounts this year, 11 are in Los Angeles County.

“Particularly among Democratic candidates, there are a lot of rich liberals, and that’s something you don’t necessarily see in every location,”said John Pitney, professor of political science at the Claremont McKenna College.

Home field advantage?

Schiff, who has represented northern Los Angeles County since 2001, has attracted most of the campaign contributions from his home county, itemized data shows.

His campaign received $1.2 million of the total $1.6 million in contributions from Los Angeles donors. Of the top 10 California ZIP codes giving to his campaign, eight are located in Los Angeles County.

However, just one — 90210 in Beverly Hills — falls at least partially within the congressional district he represents. Most — such as Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica — are represented by U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat from Sherman Oaks.

Lee’s top-contributing ZIP codes are mainly in Northern California, such as her home city of Oakland, as well as Berkeley and San Jose, data shows. Unlike Schiff, most of Lee’s top-contributing ZIP codes fall within her district.

Most Oakland donors to the three Democrats gave to Lee, who netted $314,000 from the city, compared to just $61,000 for Schiff and $44,000 for Porter in the first nine months of the year. Lee also raised the most from Berkeley, bringing in more than $146,000. Schiff received a little less than $60,000 from Berkeley donors and Porter $35,000.

Left: Rep. Adam Schiff. Photo by Ron Sachs, CNP/startraksphoto.com/Cover Images via Reuters; Center: Rep. Barbara Lee. Photo by J. Scott Applewhite, AP Photo; Right: Rep. Katie Porter. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Pool via REUTERS

Porter, who represents a competitive congressional district and who defeated her Republican challenger by just 3 percentage points in November 2022, is not relying on much campaign cash from her home district for her Senate campaign so far.

Of the top 10 California ZIP codes contributing to Porter’s campaign, only one — 92651 in Laguna Beach — is in Orange County. Like Schiff, her top-contributing ZIP code is also 90049 in Brentwood.

One reason for the lack of home district support for Porter — Orange County is more Republican than Los Angeles and Alameda, according to voter registration data maintained by California Secretary of State. “If you have a predominantly Democratic district, that may very well be where a lot of Democratic dollars live, too,” Pitney said.

Additionally, Porter’s candidacy is partly boosted by her viral whiteboard approach to congressional hearings, he said: “If you’d like seeing a progressive member of Congress humiliate a bad guy in a congressional hearing, you could be just about anywhere in California.”

In-state vs. out-of-state money

Despite having different fundraising strongholds across the state, the three top Democrats have one thing in common: More than half of their contributions from individuals and political action committees come from within California, according to the CalMatters analysis, which only includes itemized contributions and does not include transfers from the candidates’ congressional accounts or any refunds to donors.

Lee has the highest share of in-state money among the three — 64.6% — collecting $1.6 million from in-state donors. Schiff ranks second with 58.4% and Porter, a close third, raised 57.9% from the state.

But Schiff’s campaign had the highest amount of in-state contributions, totaling $6.4 million from donors who each gave more than $200 this year.

Out-of-state contributions for all three candidates are from across the nation — sometimes even from abroad.

New York donors top the list for Lee, Schiff and Porter, contributing a total of $1 million. Schiff’s campaign received $727,000 from New Yorkers, while Porter got $218,000 and Lee $139,000.

Some donors made campaign contributions with addresses registered in Germany, France, Japan, Sweden, Italy, United Kingdom and Australia, data shows. Federal law allows American citizens to contribute while abroad, but foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing directly or indirectly to American elections.

‘Not employed’ — but ready to give

There’s another fundraising theme that Lee, Schiff and Porter have in common.

If you rank their campaign contributions by occupation, topping the list are donors who say they don’t have one — the “Not Employed.” They have contributed at least $4.6 million to the three campaigns, with Schiff leading with $2.6 million, Porter with $1.3 million and Lee $726,000.

Does that mean they are all scraping by without reliable income? Not quite.

The category is so broad it includes those between jobs, homemakers, philanthropists or investors, said Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, a Washington, D.C.-based bipartisan political reform advocacy group.

Among top California Senate race donors who marked themselves “Not Employed” are several philanthropists, according to the CalMatters analysis.

That includes Nancy Nordhoff, a Seattle-based philanthropist focused on environmental and feminist causes, who contributed the maximum $6,600 to Schiff, records show. It also includes Colleen Haas, who, along with her husband Bob Haas, donated $24 million to the University of California Berkeley in 2020. She contributed $5,600 to Lee, $3,500 to Porter and $3,300 to Schiff. Neither Nordhoff nor Haas could be reached for comment.

Donors who identify themselves as retired are the second biggest occupation in itemized contributions to the Senate candidates, giving at least $2.9 million on Lee, Schiff and Porter’s campaigns.

The role of retirees is not unique to California. “For years and years and years, retirees have shown themselves to be a very significant force in politics because … they often have more wealth at their disposal than younger Americans, who are just breaking into the job market or paying off student debts,” Beckel said.

But in California, retirees represent “a very special self-selected sliver,” Pitney said.

“We're not talking about a little old lady eating cat food,” he said. “It may be a retired CEO or retired lawyer, perhaps doing a lot of pro bono work, that technically isn't employed.”

Attorneys are the third-biggest contributing occupation to all three candidates. Schiff — a former attorney and prosecutor — took in $1.4 million, more than Porter and Lee combined. Porter — a former investigator and professor of law — received $426,000 from attorneys while Lee received $125,000.

But among donors who identify as professors, Schiff — not Porter — received the most, netting more than $84,000. Porter took in $81,000 from professors, but that accounts for a larger share of Porter’s fundraising compared to Lee and Schiff.

Lee, Porter and Schiff’s campaigns have generally attracted donors from many of the same industries in the first three quarters of 2023. Donors who work at education groups, law firms or Democratic or liberal groups gave the most to the three candidates, according to an OpenSecrets analysis.

Limiting PAC contributions

None of the three campaigns are relying heavily on cash from political action committees — committees formed to raise and spend money for political purposes. They are allowed to give as much as $10,000 to campaigns in this race, the maximum amount also doubled due to the special and regular elections.

Lee’s PAC contributions made up 3.7% of her total itemized contributions from individuals and groups. Schiff’s PAC contributions accounted for 1.9% of total contributions and Porter, 0.8%.

Schiff’s campaign received $210,000 from PACs, the most among the three Democrats. Lee received more than $89,000, while Porter received a little more than $34,000.

The lack of PAC contributions echoes candidates’ pledge to reject corporate PAC money, Beckel said.

“These types of pledges have been in vogue as politicians look for ways to connect with voters who feel like politics as usual in Washington isn't working,” he said. “Rejecting corporate PAC money is one way for candidates to signal to voters that they want to work to fix politics.”

Also, corporate PACs are generally “leery of a contested primary” and often back the incumbents, Pitney said.

Schiff’s top contributing PACs each gave his campaign the maximum $10,000, including the leadership PAC associated with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who endorsed Schiff in February. She called Schiff someone “who knows well the nexus between a strong Democracy and a strong economy,” Politico reported.

The other three PACs that each gave $10,000 are the FIREPAC, the political contribution arm of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which endorsed Schiff; the Credit Union National Association PAC, and the American Crystal Sugar Company PAC.

Porter’s top 10 contributing PACs are mostly ones dedicated to progressive causes or to electing Democratic women. Lee’s top 10 contributing PACs include leadership PACs from current and former congressional colleagues. For example, Sea Change PAC — one of the three PACs giving $10,000 to Lee’s campaign — is associated with former U.S. Rep. Karen Bass, now mayor of Los Angeles.

Some PACs gave to multiple candidates.

For instance, the IBEW PAC Voluntary Fund and the Save Democracy PAC both contributed to Schiff and Porter’s campaigns. Both PACs gave $5,000 to Porter’s campaign committee during the first quarter, but also gave thousands more to Schiff’s campaign later in the year, records show.

Porter and Lee shared five PAC donors: Electing Women Bay Area PAC, Women’s Political Committee, Los Angeles Women’s Giving Collective PAC, Fight for Our Democracy PAC and Elect Democratic Women. Some contributed to both candidates within days.

The Washington, D.C.-based group Elect Democratic Women contributed $1,000 to Lee on March 20, and gave $1,000 to Porter two days after. The PAC later gave Lee another $1,500 throughout the year. The Los Angeles Women’s Giving Collective PAC gave $2,500 to Porter on March 22, and gave the same amount to Lee a week later.