LOS ANGELES — Rep. Katie Porter has been a bright spot for Democrats as they try to claim territory in Orange County, California’s historic bastion of conservatism. But even with a nearly $30 million campaign war chest and a gift for turning congressional hearings into viral takedowns, she barely won reelection last year.

Now, with Porter vacating the seat to run for Senate, Democrats are torn between two candidates. Each represents a key constituency that could help keep the district blue absent her star power: Asian Americans and anti-Trump suburban women.

The answer to whether a Democrat not named Katie Porter — without her national profile or piles of campaign cash — can win in southern California’s 47th congressional district will echo far beyond Orange County. It could very well determine the balance of power in the House.

The contest between Democrats Dave Min and Joanna Weiss has become even more charged since Min, the early Democratic favorite, was arrested on drunken driving charges in May after running a red light. (Min called the incident “the worst mistake of my life.”) As Democrats in California and Washington argue about whether picking Min is too politically risky, the Republican who narrowly lost to Porter last year is salivating at another shot to flip the seat.

“Our suspicion is they will have come through a fairly bloody primary process,” GOP candidate Scott Baugh said of whoever emerges as the Democrat candidate in the general election.

The left began agonizing over the district as soon as Porter decided in January to run for Senate instead of seeking reelection. Their path to retake the House runs through California and requires picking off vulnerable Republicans who lost a key patron with the ouster of then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

But in this case, the party is playing defense in a district where Democrats have a whisper-thin registration advantage. Though President Joe Biden won the seat by 11 points over former President Donald Trump in 2020, Republicans doubt he can replicate that margin this time around.

It is an especially fraught moment for Orange County Democrats, who have whipsawed between successes and setbacks in recent years — sweeping the county’s six-district delegation in 2018, only to backslide and give two seats back to the Republicans. Porter’s narrow victory last year further underscored how tenuous the party’s gains have been, even with a political celebrity on the ballot.

“No one can be like Katie Porter,” Min said in a recent interview. “I’m not going to try to be like Katie Porter. She’s uniquely charismatic, uniquely funny, uniquely famous.”

While neither Min nor Weiss sell themselves as Porter clones, they all share a similar political origin story: the 2018 midterms. Min and Porter, neither of whom held elected office, ran for Congress that year. After Porter bested Min in an acrimonious primary, Min used that campaign as a springboard to his successful state Senate run in 2020.

Also in that election cycle, Weiss helped build Women for American Values and Ethics (WAVE), a fundraising and volunteer machine that embodied the political awakening of suburban women after Trump’s election in 2016. The group was especially successful in organizing in the county’s coastal areas, home to mostly affluent mainline Republicans and independents that were a pivotal voting bloc for Democrats’ successes that year.

Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), who grew up in Orange County and now represents an inland swath of the county, said Weiss’ experience mobilizing women voters will be essential in 2024, as Democrats hope to harness the lingering anger about the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As recent elections in Ohio and Virginia showed, the right to an abortion remains a deeply potent issue.

“When you talk about things like a woman’s right to choose, that’s very personal,” Sánchez said. “Being a woman in that race, she’s going to be able to deliver that message.”

But Min’s camp argues most voters who see abortion as a top issue have already made up their minds on which party they will support — and that Asian Americans, who make up 20 percent of the eligible voting population, are the decisive swing voters. Both parties are vying for the Asian American and Pacific Islander vote, and Republicans have made a particular effort to build a bench of candidates from those communities. Two Korean American women — Reps. Michelle Steel and Young Kim — reclaimed two contested seats for the GOP in 2020; there are currently no Asian American Democrats from Orange County in Congress.

Min, who is Korean American but has a surname that is also common among Chinese and Vietnamese people, says he can appeal to otherwise conservative-leaning Asian Americans.

These voters “are the margin of victory in a lot of cases,” said Tammy Kim, the Democratic vice mayor of Irvine who previously ran an Asian American Pacific Islander progressive advocacy group.

“I really like Joanna Weiss — I really do. … I hate the fact that her and Dave are running against each other,” Kim said. “With that being said, I believe if there is an AAPI seat, this is one. And I want to see Dave Min get it.”

Min said Porter, who endorsed his campaign, told him she believed the seat should be represented by an Asian American. Porter’s campaign did not comment on Min’s remarks.

The harshest fights between the Democrats so far have little to do with differences in policy or political strategy. Instead, it’s all about Min’s DUI.

The incident generated new momentum for Weiss, who was already in the race. In the weeks after the arrest, Harley Rouda, the district’s former Democratic representative, lined up with Weiss and called on Min to drop out. Other Democrats announced their support for Weiss soon afterward, including Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley and Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, who won hard-fought elections in the area. So did EMILY’S List, the national fundraising juggernaut that backs women candidates who favor abortion rights.

“We need to make sure we’re sending the strongest candidate into the general,” Weiss said. “It’s concerning that anyone would drive under the influence and endanger other drivers — especially a state senator, driving a state-owned vehicle, who exercised poor judgment of character. I think our community agrees with that.”

While some national Democrats initially expressed concern about Min’s prospects, party leaders in Washington have yet to back either campaign. The House Democrats’ campaign arm has kept its focus on Baugh, teeing up attacks on his views of abortion or his past campaign legal troubles that resulted in $47,000 in fines.

Both campaigns have publicly and privately been making their case to party leaders and activists about whether or not the DUI is disqualifying. Weiss’ supporters say it is especially damaging because there is video footage of Min’s arrest.

Min’s camp released a polling memo asserting that such attacks on Min fall flat with voters. The poll questions omitted some details that would likely make fodder for attack ads, such as the fact he was driving a state-owned car, according to screenshots reviewed by POLITICO.

There was no major exodus of endorsements from Min’s campaign and he has since picked up additional support from law enforcement such as the unions representing Los Angeles police and deputy sheriffs. He also consolidated most of the support from local Democratic clubs and is poised to get the state Democratic Party endorsement at its convention this weekend.

“If it’s about viability, that’s not something we’ve found to be a hit,” Min said. “Other candidates are making this all about my DUI but will not articulate their own rationale or arguments of how they could win — or present evidence.”

Meanwhile, Min’s allies are pointing to potential drags on Weiss’ candidacy in the general election, such as her living roughly ten miles outside the district boundaries (members of Congress are not required to live in their districts). And they have gone after Weiss for loaning nearly a quarter million dollars to her campaign, arguing the bid is being financed by her work — and her husband’s — as corporate litigators representing companies accused of harming workers.

A chippy primary in March could be water under the bridge in November; plenty of candidates, including Porter herself in 2018, were able to bring together a fractured party and win in the general election.

Porter’s campaign projected optimism that Democrats remain well-positioned for the seat, even as she seeks higher office. Her campaign spokesperson Mila Myles said that “whichever Democrat emerges” will benefit from the grassroots organizing she built in the district.

Still, Baugh, the Republican who is running again this cycle, can barely hide his giddiness about what he calls a “dramatically different” landscape compared to 2022, when Porter spent nine times more than he did. This time, he has already raised more than $1.5 million, roughly a quarter million more than Min and Weiss. He is seen as the prohibitive favorite among Orange County Republicans, though he does face a challenge to his right from businessperson Max Ukropina.

National Republicans are similarly content to watch Democrats fight among themselves.

“Democrats locking horns over who’s the most extreme liberal while ignoring Orange County families’ urgent concerns is Christmas come early for Republicans in this highly-competitive race,” said Ben Petersen, spokesperson with the National Republican Congressional Committee.

A bipartisan ethics report concludes there is “substantial evidence” that George Santos violated federal criminal laws, which will almost certainly trigger another attempt to expel him from the House.

The explosive report released Thursday by the House Ethics Committee found that Santos spent campaign funds on Botox treatments and lavish Atlantic City trips with his husband. It also details the New York Republican’s efforts to obscure his money trail, as he sought to build a “fictional” financial narrative on official records, according to the 55-page report.

“At nearly every opportunity, he placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles,” the report reads. “Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit.”

The House Ethics Committee, which is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, stopped short of recommending any sanctions, including expulsion, against Santos. Ethics Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said evaluating and recommending sanctions “would have taken several more months” and the panel wanted to move expeditiously. 

The panel, which adopted the report unanimously on Tuesday, did recommend that Santos be publicly condemned after finding his conduct was “beneath the dignity of the office and to have brought severe discredit upon the House.”

That’s expected to happen soon. House Ethics Chairman Michael Guest said he plans to file a motion to expel Santos, triggering a vote within days of the House returning from its Thanksgiving recess. Two previous efforts to sanction Santos — including an expulsion push — failed, though some Republicans indicated they would change their vote if the Ethics panel found evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Still, it’s unclear if enough members would flip to reach the required two-thirds threshold, particularly given GOP concerns over further slimming their already narrow majority.

Santos has pleaded not guilty to 23 charges in federal court, including identity theft, charging donor’s credit cards without authorization and submitting false campaign finance reports with non-existent loans and contributions that were fabricated or stolen.

The committee typically halts its investigations of members under federal indictment, to give the Justice Department the right of way until a prosecution is concluded. But the House Ethics Committee forged ahead on their own investigation into Santos, citing the “unique” and “unprecedented” circumstances of his case.

“The integrity of the House has been called into question in a significant and overt manner that the Committee cannot ignore,” the report says.

More improper spending

Santos made a $1,500 campaign debit card purchase that was noted as “Botox” in expense spreadsheets and two other purchases that totaled over a thousand dollars at aesthetic spas.

Santos was known for talking to people — including to the wives of prominent donors — about botox, plastic surgery, shoes, and designer fashion on the campaign trail, sources familiar with the matter told POLITICO.

The committee also found he used more than $2,000 in campaign funds on trips to Atlantic City and more than $3,000 on an Airbnb over a weekend his campaign calendar indicated he was vacationing in the Hamptons.

A former staffer told investigators that Santos “once brought him to a Botox appointment when there was a campaign event nearby” and another said they did not recall any campaign business in Atlantic City.

The questionable spending didn’t stop there — it also included designer fashion and paying his rent, according to the report. A $20,000 transfer to Santos’ business, Devolder Organization, requested by his treasurer’s staff, was “made at a time when that account had a negative balance,” the report says. Money from this deposit was then subsequently used a week later to purchase about $6,000 worth of luxury goods at Ferragamo stores, pay his rent and spend $800 at a casino, along with other ATM withdrawals.

‘No money’

The report details a series of lies about his personal and campaign finances, bolstering various news reports that Santos fabricated his resume and personal background.

A new allegation of another extravagant lie is included in the report: “At no point does Representative Santos appear to have owned a Maserati, despite telling campaign staff otherwise.”

That was the least of his worries, according to the report. He inflated six personal loans he made to his own campaign, which in reality amounted to $3,500, saying they actually totaled more than $80,000. Not only did this indicate false amounts of cash to donors and obscure how deeply in trouble his campaign was financially, it also led to Santos allegedly receiving personal repayment for loans that had not existed, another example of improperly using campaign funds for personal use.

“Santos was frequently in debt, had an abysmal credit score, and relied on an ever-growing wallet of high-interest credit cards to fund his luxury spending habits,” reads the report that concluded the errors in reporting were due to “a scheme to avoid transparency about his campaign’s finances” rather than careless errors by his campaign aides.

“At least one staffer told the committee he went eight months without pay,” because his campaign had “no money” according to the report.

After an internal 141-page report revealed his campaign’s financial vulnerability in late 2021, campaign aides encouraged him to drop out of the race. When he refused, staffers quit. But as new campaign aides were hired to replace them, Santos redoubled his financial sleight of hand, the ethics report found.

Ultimately, his personal and campaign finances, as evaluated by the House Ethics investigation, was “irreconcilable with the narrative he broadcast to his constituents, campaign supporters, and staff.”

‘Knowing and active participant’

A key theme of the report is that Santos was a knowing and willing participant in this “complex web of unlawful activity.”

Despite public claims he had little to no involvement, he not only had the login credentials for campaign bank accounts and received weekly financial reports, but he was also personally involved and active in tracking money as it flowed through the accounts.

He was “highly involved in his campaign’s financial operations,” which goes against his comments to CNN this month that he “never ever submitted or even looked at a single report.”

Multiple witnesses testified that Santos was “hands on” and very much involved in his campaign’s finances. In other words, the investigators were “not swayed” by his attempts to blame his campaign staff for the wrongdoing.

A former treasurer for Santos’ campaign, Nancy Marks, has already pleaded guilty to a charge of fraud conspiracy and implicated Santos in a scheme to exaggerate his campaign finance reports with fake donations and a fake loan. But the report noted that despite Santos’ “efforts to blame his former treasurer for the numerous campaign finance violations,” they found “he was a knowing and active participant in the misconduct.”

And the ethics report found evidence of “additional unlawful conduct” on campaign disclosures and personal finance reports to the Federal Election Commission related to converting campaign funds for personal use, beyond the charges already brought by the Justice Department.

Promise of ‘100%’ compliance falls short

The subcommittee tasked with investigating the sweeping allegations against Santos did not get the full cooperation that he promised — far from it.

“Santos’ claim that he would cooperate with the investigation was just another falsehood,” the report says.

He provided limited documents with major delays and “declined to voluntarily testify” to House Ethics. And when he wasn’t evading their efforts to get information, the investigators found he only provided a few responses that included “material misstatements that advanced the lies he made during his 2022 campaign.”

The panel was unable to substantiate allegations of sexual misconduct by Santos from a prospective employee. But the report notes that Santos handled that allegation differently than financial wrongdoing. Santos provided a “robust response to the sexual misconduct allegations,” which they say suggests his compliance “turned on whether he believed doing so was in his personal interest, rather than fulfilling his duty to cooperate.”

Progressive Democrats who’ve condemned Israel over its war offensive in Gaza are demanding that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries do more to protect them against primary challenges from pro-Israel Democrats.

In a closed-door meeting at party headquarters last Thursday, the three lawmakers who lead the Progressive Caucus’ PAC met with Jeffries and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the head of House Democrats’ campaign arm. They told the Democratic leader he needed to keep the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee out of Democratic primaries.

In fact, the progressive leaders argued, Democrats’ efforts to recapture the House next year might depend on it.

“If we have to spend a lot of money to keep our incumbents in office, then that’s less money that gets spent on frontline districts and districts we can pick up, so it is a real problem,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a co-chair of the PAC. “And that’s why it’s really important to be clear to AIPAC that they need to stand down and that we are going to vigorously defend our members.”

The Israel-Hamas war is forcing Jeffries to navigate a treacherous divide between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian members just as he’s gearing up for a battle to retake the chamber next year.

Jeffries has committed that his party’s campaign arm will work to reelect incumbents who’ve harshly criticized Israel over its response to the Hamas attack last month. His vow comes as several of them, including Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.), have drawn primary opponents backed by deep-pocketed groups aligned with Israel. Jeffries heard out the progressives’ concerns about AIPAC, a group that he still maintains close ties to, according to a person familiar with the conversation, and talked through the dynamics of several of the races.

Democratic Party divisions on the Israel-Hamas conflict are reverberating throughout the party. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who’s one of the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus PAC, was apparently delayed to the meeting because of ceasefire protesters at his house — an example of how politics for pro-Israel progressives have been complicated by the outbreak of violence in Israel.

The moment is also an opportunity for Jeffries and other new Democratic leaders to shore up support on their left flank. Although they haven’t always been on the same page on the Israel conflict, with Jeffries staking out a more pro-Israel stance, progressives are willing to set aside their differences — if they get the necessary help.

Pennsylvania Rep. Summer Lee, a progressive first-term lawmaker facing a primary challenge, acknowledged that Jeffries had contributed financially to defending incumbents. But she urged him to do more.

“I hope that he will speak out as urgently and aggressively as those who are speaking out against us,” Lee said.

It was a call echoed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who said in a brief interview that with “the highly racialized targeting of many of these members, we absolutely need leadership that would defend our members from that.”

The meeting marked the second time in recent months that top progressives have gone to ask leadership for help. Progressives first asked Democratic leaders to clarify their position on protecting incumbents over the summer, after Jayapal dubbed Israel a “racist state.” Jeffries and his team reassured liberals at the time they would continue the policy of defending incumbents.

It’s not a controversial position in the party, even among Democrats who had been sharply critical of the party’s left flank on Israel-related issues. Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), who’d voted to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) over her criticism of Israel, acknowledged that Jeffries had “the responsibility to make sure we get to 218” but also “that we are supporting our members.”

Still, it’s unclear how much Jeffries can do to dissuade AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups. The United Democracy Project, a super PAC run by AIPAC, and DMFI PAC, which is run by Democratic Majority for Israel, are already ramping up for the 2024 cycle. UDP is running a negative ad against Lee in her district as well as an ad hitting Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.). Lee faces a credible primary challenge from Bhavini Patel, and Westchester County Executive George Latimer has been floated as a challenger to Bowman.

DMFI is also running an ad against Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, that highlights her criticisms of the Israeli government.

“These anti-Israel members, they’ve already crossed that threshold. So then the real question is, as I said before, is can we have an impact here?” said DMFI president Mark Mellman, describing how the PAC decides where to spend money.

Last cycle, DMFI PAC spent $7.5 million in independent expenditures, and UDP spent $26 million, according to OpenSecrets. United Democracy Project did not respond to a request for comment.

It’s not just House leaders who are signaling they’ll defend incumbents — the Black Caucus PAC is publicly committing to standing behind them, too. Several of the targeted lawmakers are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which Bowman called “ a problem to me, because this is a country that historically has undermined Black leadership.”

“The [CBC] PAC has endorsed them already and we will support them the way we support all of our endorsed candidates,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the head of the CBC PAC.

Meeks said he hasn’t talked specifically to any of those members, many of whom are members of the CBC, about their primaries but plans to support them.

AIPAC’s heavy spending has particularly rankled Democrats, many of whom criticized the flood of outside money. The small-dollar fundraising that buoyed many progressive members in their first races has dried up this year, making them more vulnerable to primary challenges. Small-dollar fundraising, defined as donations under $200 apiece, is down for campaigns and committees across federal campaigns in both parties, giving extra influence to big-check donors and outside spending.

Bush, for example, only reported about $20,000 in cash on hand as of the most recent FEC filing deadline. She said she felt confident, though, about the support she had in her district, adding that she saw a bump in donations after her opponent, Wesley Bell, announced he was challenging her. She told POLITICO in an interview that on top of financial support, she wanted leadership to openly back her and to rebut attacks on her congressional tenure.

“The support is really the truth about what’s going on,” she said. “Because the thing is, people will try to smear this work.”

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) a co-chair of progressives’ PAC, was particularly concerned by AIPAC’s spending in Democratic primaries given the group’s Republican donors.

“We just wanted to continue talking about how to make sure that an entity like AIPAC — if they don’t play in Republican primaries, they shouldn’t be playing with Democratic primaries,” he said of the group’s conversation with party leadership.

Ally Mutnick contributed to this report.