other candidate

SACRAMENTO — The big-money backers and Democratic heavyweights who tried to crown Rep. Eric Swalwell as California’s next governor before his scandal-plagued exit from the political arena are now scrambling to find a new favorite among the candidates they either spurned or actively tried to undercut.

Swalwell (D-Dublin) announced Monday he would resign his seat in Congress. He faced potential expulsion and an ongoing criminal investigation after reports were made public Friday alleging he sexually assaulted a young female staff member and engaged in inappropriate behavior with three other women, including sending them nude photographs. Swalwell denied the allegations and, in his announcement Sunday that he was dropping out of the governor’s race, vowed to fight to clear his name.

The immediate beneficiaries of Swalwell’s fall are likely former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and billionaire financier Tom Steyer. Both were challenging Swalwell to be the top Democrat in the race even though each has faced attacks from within the party on various issues.

This new round of chaos only feeds the anxiety that has enveloped the California Democratic Party for months, stirred by fears that the lack of a singular party front-runner might lead to two Republicans winding up on the November ballot. Swalwell’s exit from the race also may revive candidates who have been languishing in the midsection of recent opinion polls — former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San José Mayor Matt Mahan — adding to the uncertainty.

“What happens now depends on what campaigns do to take advantage of this,” said Andrew Acosta, a Democratic political consultant who is not involved in any of the campaigns. The other candidates, he said, “can use this as an opportunity to make their case.”

They wasted no time.

Porter’s campaign on Sunday circulated internal polling showing that nearly half of Swalwell’s supporters listed her as their second choice. Steyer announced endorsements from lawmakers including Northern California Rep. Jared Huffman, who was among the first House Democrats to call on Swalwell to resign from Congress.

Others quickly used Swalwell’s departure as a fundraising tool.

“This changes the race,” Mahan’s fundraiser Stephanie Daily Smith wrote in an email blast to supporters on Sunday, adding that Swalwell “had been gaining real traction in the Bay Area media market and now that vote share is up for grabs.”

Former state Controller Betty Yee told her email list on Monday that “we can forget the polls” that showed Swalwell as a front-runner, suggesting he led because of an “obsession with who looks the part.”

“I’m not flashy, and I don’t ‘look the part’ of what the talking heads think wins,” she said.

Swalwell’s campaign had been gathering momentum over the last month. A poll released in mid-March by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed that Swalwell and Porter were both supported by 13% of likely voters, with Steyer not too far behind. The top Republicans in the race, former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, led with 17% and 16% support, respectively.

Elected officials, labor unions and other groups that had endorsed Swalwell abandoned him en masse after the allegations against him were publicized. But it’s unclear which candidate those influential voices will lend their support to next.

While many Democrats see Steyer and Porter as the next-most viable candidates, they each have their own baggage. Steyer has faced criticism on the campaign trail over his former hedge fund’s investments in a private prison company that is now housing people detained by federal immigration authorities, while Porter’s campaign is still haunted by embarrassing videos in which she berated a staffer and belittled a television reporter.

Primary election ballots will begin hitting California voters’ mailboxes in just a few weeks, and Swalwell’s campaign had been gaining steam and financial support that may now be up for grabs by other candidates.

Powerful organizations including the California Medical Assn. and SEIU California have poured millions into independent expenditure committees supporting Swalwell. But as the scandal unfolded, their leaders called emergency meetings to withdraw their support and pulled the plug on ads supporting him. Neither has indicated whether they would re-endorse in the race.

Over the weekend, Democratic members of the Legislative Women’s Caucus hastily organized calls with Porter and Yee — the only women left in the field of top candidates — according to two people familiar with the conversations. Though several of the lawmakers had not planned on backing either candidate, they’re reconsidering, driven by anger at Swalwell and frustration that other qualified women, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, previously dropped out of the race.

“Epstein files keep coming, Cesar Chavez rocked California and now this,” one lawmaker on the calls said. “If we cannot elect a woman to the state’s highest office in 2026, what is wrong with us?”

Swalwell reported raising more than $7.4 million in direct donations through April 9, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance data. About 60% of the contributions were from California donors.

Stephen Cloobeck, another Swalwell benefactor and longtime Democratic donor, said he is changing his party registration and is considering endorsing Hilton for governor.

“Don’t be surprised,” Cloobeck said in an interview on Monday.

“We agree on probably 90% of the issues,” he said, adding that he had met Hilton about a half-dozen times and appreciated his campaign message. “We are friends. I’m for unity. I come from old-school unity. I don’t cast aspersions.”

A protege of the late Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Cloobeck entered the gubernatorial contest but dropped out once Swalwell, with whom he had a long-term friendship, jumped into the contest. Cloobeck endorsed the congressman and put about $1 million into an independent expenditure committee backing him. Swalwell stayed at Cloobeck’s Beverly Hills mansion after the news of the allegations against him broke — until Cloobeck kicked him out.

Cloobeck said he knows all of the seven prominent Democrats who remain in the governor’s race and has long said he isn’t impressed by any of them. He said he wished the California Legislature would amend the state Constitution so he could file to reenter the race.

Donna Bojarsky, a longtime Democratic political insider in Los Angeles, attended Swalwell fundraisers this year thrown by Hollywood business leaders.

“People are horrified,” Bojarsky said. She said there have been rumors about sexual indiscretions, but nobody suggested allegations of sexual assault.

Swalwell has close ties to the industry and was set to be an executive producer on a film about the nation’s gun crisis before pulling his name over a labor dispute. He also maintains a real estate investment firm and media company geared toward producing television, film and online content.

Actors Sean Penn, Robert De Niro and Jon Hamm are among several Hollywood figures who donated to Swalwell’s campaign for governor.

Bojarsky hopes the silver lining of the scandal is that there “might be more of a race” as people scrutinize the field of candidates.

“People are paying attention,” she said.

When Estuardo Mazariegos was 22, he was pulled over by Los Angeles police officers who found a gun and ammunition in the back seat of his Nissan Sentra.

The gun, he said, was not his. He was holding onto it for a friend, he said, but he got hit with a felony gun possession charge, later pleading it down to a misdemeanor.

Seventeen years later, Mazariegos is running for Los Angeles City Council — and he believes his gun conviction makes him a better candidate.

“I think it’s a strength. It’s not a liability,” said Mazariegos, who was born in Guatemala and grew up in Hollywood and South L.A. “I feel like it creates more of a connection with me and the community, because there’s so many people that are justice-impacted.”

But the gun charge could also be an issue for Mazariegos in his race against five other candidates to represent Council District 9, which covers part of South L.A. He was also convicted of shoplifting when he was 19.

The district is the poorest the city, and the council race is expected to be one of the most competitive city contests this June, with the current council member, Curren Price, terming out.

Mazariegos is head of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Los Angeles, a grassroots advocacy organization. The 40-year-old is backed by the L.A. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and supports leftist policies like reducing funding to the LAPD to spend more on other programs.

Jose Ugarte, a District 9 candidate who was a longtime Price staffer, believes his opponent’s criminal history is a red flag.

“Getting arrested and convicted for multiple crimes, including carrying a concealed loaded gun, should disqualify Estuardo in this race,” Ugarte said in a statement. “Instead, the Democratic Socialists of L.A. are propping up his candidacy and hiding his criminal past from voters who deserve to know the truth.”

DSA-LA co-chair Leslie Chang said her group is “proud” to stand with Mazariegos.

Mazariegos’ supporters say he hasn’t hidden his past.

Georgia Flowers-Lee, a vice president with United Teachers Los Angeles, said Mazariegos discussed his gun conviction and the circumstances surrounding it during his interviews with the union, which ended up endorsing him.

“He was up front, honest about the challenges and honest about the gun charge,” she said. “Walked us through what had happened and where it led and how and why he ended up pleading it out,” she said.

Flowers-Lee, who lives in the district, said that young men of color like Mazariegos are overpoliced.

“I do not see this as a disqualifier. And let’s talk about redemption,” she said.

Wednesday night, Mazariegos released a campaign video featuring him discussing gun violence and his conviction with childhood friends. He said it was a turning point in his life.

“That was the moment where I was like, it’s either now or never,” he said. “Either I leave this s— behind, or it’s going to eat me up. I’m never going back to that lifestyle. I’m going to dedicate myself to the people.”

Mazariegos said he never carried a gun, except for that one day, but many of his friends did.

“Guns were a very common thing. It was almost like having a bike,” he said.

Mazariegos said that in 2009, he was driving home from the San Fernando Valley in the early morning, after dropping friends off, when he was pulled over by the LAPD. He said the officers gave no reason for stopping him, but they made him get out of his car and searched it without a warrant, finding the gun.

He was a permanent resident at the time, after moving from Guatemala at a young age, and was advised by his attorney to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle, to avoid possible deportation, he said.

He was sentenced to 24 months of probation and one day in jail, court records show.

Growing up in Hollywood and Hyde Park, among other parts of the city, Mazariegos was intimately familiar with gun and gang violence.

His friend, Oscar Michael Morales, was shot to death in 2001 at age 14. He remembers Morales’ mother cleaning the blood off the sidewalk the next day.

His gun conviction helps him connect with residents of Council District 9, Mazariegos said, and he frequently discusses it while door-knocking.

Ugarte, meanwhile, is paying off $25,000 in fines to the city Ethics Commission for failing to disclose years of outside income while he was working for Price.

Price himself has been criminally charged with four counts of voting on matters in which he had a conflict of interest, five counts of embezzlement and three counts of perjury. Prosecutors allege he voted to approve deals with developers or agencies that had done business with his wife.

Democratic legislative leaders on Monday called on voters to boycott USC’s upcoming gubernatorial debate if the university does not invite candidates who were excluded from participating.

The unsparing letter adds another layer of controversy to Tuesday’s forum, which as a result of the university’s selection criteria would not include any of the leading candidates of color.

“We are writing to demand you open the March 24 gubernatorial debate to all leading candidates,” said the letter sent Monday evening to USC President Beong-Soo Kim by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and the leaders of the legislative Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, Jewish and women’s caucuses. “The outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal demands from the excluded candidates’ attorneys, public calls by elected leaders across the state, concerns from the included candidates’ own campaigns, and growing alarm from California voters. Instead of responding to these valid concerns by expanding the debate, USC has doubled down.”

USC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. Tuesday’s debate is scheduled less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes.

The university has been embroiled in controversy over the criteria it used to select the candidates it invited to participate in Tuesday’s debate, which is co-sponsored by KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision.

Specifically, critics have pointed out the methodology allowed San José Mayor Matt Mahan — a white candidate who recently entered the race and is polling poorly — to vault above former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee.

“The university’s selection process — built on a formula never before used for a debate of this scale, has delivered a result that is biased,” the letter says. “When a methodology produces this outcome — one that elevates a candidate with notable ties to USC’s donor community and the co-director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future — the burden falls on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it. If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.”

Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist previously said he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he has asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he takes a paid role in the campaign.

USC has also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as a trustee for years, is also a Mahan supporter.

“I had no conversations with the debate hosts or organizers,” Caruso said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “This is the most important election for California in a generation, and I encourage everyone to be engaged, learn as much as possible about each candidate, then form an opinion who can move California forward in the most positive of ways. Watching debates is a part of that process. That is why I believe debates should include all the credible candidates.”

The debate sponsors released a joint statement on Friday defending their decision.

“We want to be clear that we categorically, unequivocally deny any allegations that the debate criteria was in any way biased in favor or against any candidate and want to clarify the facts,” said the statement by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and its broadcast partners. “The methodology was based on well-established metrics consistent with formulas widely used to set debate participation nationwide — a combination of polling and fundraising — and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”

Hours later, the four prominent Democrats who were excluded from the debate called on their rivals to boycott the event, reiterating their concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.

The four Democrats who are participating in the debate — Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan — all issued statements criticizing USC’s selection criteria, but did not pull out of the debate.

“It is a shame that USC has decided to elevate one candidate at the expense of others,” Swalwell wrote on X on Sunday. “USC, and every host of a gubernatorial debate, should employ fair, objective, and honest criteria for all candidates. I remain hopeful they will do so Tuesday night.”

Porter expressed similar thoughts.

“Criteria used to determine which candidates qualify to participate in a debate must be transparent, fair, and objective,” she wrote on X. “I’m disappointed by how USC handled the process for Tuesday’s debate. Candidates and Californians deserve answers.”