Corporate PACs vs. Silicon Valley

Rep. Mike Thompson is a homegrown politician seeking his 15th consecutive term in the U.S. House of Representatives, following eight years in the California Legislature. His most formidable Democratic primary challenger for California’s 4th Congressional District, Eric Jones, is a political neophyte and recent Napa transplant trying to build name recognition.

For two candidates in the same political party, they could scarcely present a starker contrast. And the same can be said of their campaign financing.

Thompson, 75, who has been building political bridges as long as Jones, 35, has been alive, draws reliably heavy support from political action committees, big industry players and the local wine business.

Jones’ campaign is largely financed by people working in venture capital, tech, private equity, hedge funds and other forms of finance. He used to work in venture capital.

Both sides see something nefarious in their opponent’s fundraising.

Jones is quick to note that his campaign money comes entirely from individual donations; he doesn’t take a dime from PACs, corporations or lobbyists, he said. Thompson relies heavily on more traditional funding streams, which Jones characterizes as an open door to influence peddling.

Thompson has been less vocal about Jones’ financing. But his supporters have been questioning the challenger’s reliance on money flooding in from outside the sprawling district, which now, under the state’s reshuffled electoral map, includes Napa, Yolo, Colusa, Sutter and Yuba counties, and parts of Sonoma, Lake, Sacramento and Placer. The district, with a far larger number of registered Democrats, is expected to vote solidly blue.

Clean money vs. corporate strings. County sheriffs vs. financiers. Retirees in St. Helena vs. AI software engineers in San Francisco vs. Washington lobbyists. If you have a political bone to pick, you are likely to find fault somewhere in the 4th District campaign financing.

One thing is clear from the public records: Thompson, who has never in his political career lost an election, is in for a rare fight. Jones outraised him in 2025, roughly $2.6 million to $2 million - a stunning deficit for a veteran congressman who has never received less than 61% of the vote in either a primary or general election.

The figures represent only dollars sent directly into the two campaigns. They do not include money spent on behalf of candidates by fundraising committees such as super PACs.

“I don’t know if Mike’s team is running scared. But they’re running concerned,” said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University. “The Jones team is running this in a more sophisticated way than previous millionaire campaigns.”

Among the 45 California congress members running for reelection in districts they were already representing, only two were losing the financing battle through September. Thompson was one. The other was Republican Darrell Issa, who was narrowly outfunded by Democratic challenger Brandon Riker in the 48th District.

A third Democratic candidate in the 4th District race, Trevor Merrell, 25, of Rohnert Park, hadn’t raised any campaign money by Sept. 30, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Here’s a look at the campaign financing of the Thompson and Jones campaigns, and where they diverge.

DIFFERENT PATHS TO CASH The candidates got to their fundraising figures very differently.

Thompson had a higher number of donors who gave far less per person. Jones capitalized on larger contributions from a smaller pool of contributors.

The average payment to Eric Jones’ campaign in 2025 was more than $3,300. The average contribution made to Thompson’s campaign was about $465. More than 240 people donated $7,000, the maximum individual contribution per cycle. For Thompson, only 43 people gave that amount.

To 4th District residents suspicious of Jones’ rapid emergence on the political scene - and there are many - these numbers signal a reliance on households with deep pockets, and a lack of grassroots support.

And among the deepest pockets funding Jones run are his own. Jones has so far donated just under $364,000 to his campaign, about 14.5% of his total haul. His parents, who live in Florida, donated $14,000.

Thompson had more than five times as many donors as his opponent. Many were Napa County residents of modest means, sending checks for $50 or $100. Those don’t pay for a lot of campaign ads, but they have reliably translated into votes for Thompson, a moder- ate Democrat who has taken the lead on issues including gun safety, health care and veterans rights.

Jones, who is challenging Thompson from the left while advocating for universal child care and workforce housing, claimed to be undaunted at the local disparity.

“Congressman Thompson has more individual donors than we do, but he’s been campaigning since January,” the challenger noted in an interview. “I would predict we pass him in donor count as well.”

LEADER OF THE PACS Political action committees, or PACs, are tax-exempt organizations that pool campaign contributions from members and donate that money to campaigns, ballot initiatives or legislative efforts.

They are the engine that drives election spending in America. And Thompson is highly tapped in, as many national office holders are.

While Jones has vowed not to accept money from PACs, Thompson has raked in close to $1 million from them so far.

Those contributions include $12,500 from the Blue Dog Victory Fund, which supports moderate, fiscally oriented Democrats. He also got $5,000 each from the likes of PAC to the Future, affiliated with House Speaker Emerita and Democratic kingmaker Nancy Pelosi; Jobs, Education & Families First Jeff PAC, affiliated with Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries; Fair Shot PAC, dedicated to flipping seats blue; KidsPAC, which supports legislation friendly to children; and Medicare for All PAC.

CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY There are five categories of PACs, though, and some of them have little to do with party politics. Some are sponsored by particular commercial sectors or individual businesses.

These are Thompson’s bread and butter.

His top contributors in 2025 included First Foundation Bank ($15,148), the Tractor Supply Co. PAC ($10,000), the American Crystal Sugar Co. PAC ($10,000) and Edison International PAC ($9,000).

The congressman also received thousands of dollars from trade lobbyists including the American Hospital Association, the American Council of Life Insurers, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the American Bankers Association, the California Rice Industry Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Meanwhile, the list of dedicated corporate PACs donating to Thompson reads like a lineup of Super Bowl advertisers: AFLAC. The Travelers Companies. Principal Life Insurance. Phillips 66. Prudential Financial. United Parcel Service. Verizon Communications. Northwest Mutual.

Jones has made it a central point of attack.

“It signals influence,” he said. “And particularly legislative influence. Because the corporations, in concert with lobbying groups, actually draft and present legislation to members of Congress. Who then run with it to pass laws.”

Jones highlighted President Donald Trump’s military abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the seizing of ships laden with oil from that country. Those actions were “highly coordinated” with the oil and gas industry, Jones said.

“That industry is a significant donor to Thompson’s campaign,” he continued, “and like others who received that money, he voted to support the National Defense Authorization Act on Dec. 17which needed Democratic votes to pass.” The act authorized a record $900 billion for defense spending.

That characterization fails to give Thompson the grace to believe he can filter out influencers, McCuan argued. Thompson, a Vietnam War combat veteran who sits on the powerful House Ways & Means Committee, has emerged as a staunch critic of the Trump administration, especially on immigration enforcement and erosion of Medicare benefits.

“Jones is taking the leap of saying there is a quid pro quo,” McCuan said. “That’s just not how it works. Do these entities get access to members they give money to? Sure. But what you do is take that money and tell them no.”

$70,000 FROM THE OFFICE POOL Jones didn’t receive a $5,000 donation from the Morgan Stanley PAC, as Thompson did. But he got $7,000 from Colin Stewart, an investment banker at the financial services firm.

However you might interpret that distinction, high-placed individual donors are driving Jones’ campaign so far. Most prominent are the venture capitalists.

Jones worked in that sector until July, and walked away with a small fortune. For the most part, he worked at Dragoneer Investment Group, based in San Francisco. It’s nice to leave an office on good terms.

At least eight current Dragoneer executives contributed $7,000 each to Jones’ campaign, as did two of their spouses.

And Jones’ VC support goes way beyond that.

Some donors are kind enough when filing campaign donations to list their occupation as “venture capitalist.” It can be harder to parse, but a Press Democrat analysis revealed at least 60 people working in venture capital who gave to Jones’campaign. Three of the top 10 firms in Time magazine’s 2025 ranking - Accel, Andreessen Horowitz and Kleiner Perkinsare represented by individuals on the candidate’s financial disclosures.

A slightly smaller pool of tech executives donated to the challenger - including some affiliated with familiar brands such as Cisco, Meta and Apple, but also people working in things like “decision intelligence” and “AI connectivity.”

Jones also drew strong support from high-ranking employees in private equity, hedge fund management and conventional finance.

McCuan expected the challenger to “democratize” his donors in the fourth quarter of 2025.

“He hasn’t really,” the professor said. “He stepped on the gas for his private equity, venture capital line. It’s JD Vance Land. It’s a lot of Republicans.”

Jones expressed puzzlement at the accusations over his funding streams, pointing out that he has been able to tap into an “overlapping network” of campaign money established by Ro Khanna and Sam Liccardo, a pair of progressive South Bay Democrats who have proved to be able fundraisers.

Ultimately, Jones doesn’t believe it will matter much to 4th District voters.

“What people in Yuba City care about is how to improve affordability, how to get effective government, how to actually bring health care to the district and how do we help education, because they have school closures,” he said. “Funding is not really on top of their mind.”

FROM YOUNTVILLE TO YUBA CITY If there’s a central complaint voiced by Thompson loyalists, it’s that Jones has tenuous ties to his district - and receives very little local money.

In the challenger’s first finance report, filed Sept. 30, only six of his nearly 450 donors claimed addresses in the 4th District. His fourth-quarter filings bumped up that number, but not hugely. The money Jones is getting from Napa-Yolo-Colusa-Yuba is vastly outweighed by his money from San Francisco, his home base until he relocated to Napa in 2021.

Compare that mix with Thompson’s: 63% of the donations the incumbent received in 2025 came from within the redrawn district, which was shifted a little south and farther to the east.

“We’re proud of Mike’s strong grassroots support,” his campaign adviser, Thomas Dowling, wrote in an email. “As someone who was born, grew up, and still lives in the 4th District, Mike understands our community’s needs firsthand and he is working every day to address our community’s challenges.”

Thompson declined an interview for this story, through Dowling.

The congressman’s support isn’t limited to kitchen tables. He draws plenty of money from local business - and especially the wine industry, which he has fiercely championed in his more than 27 years on Capitol Hill.

The Press Democrat counted well over 60 wine producers who have donated to his 2026 campaign, either as a business or through ownership or top executives. The large majority are in Napa Valley.

They include some of the industry’s heavy hitters, like Jackson Family Wines, Korbel, Trinchero Family Estates (five of the company’s leaders pooled a total of close to $15,000), Beringer Wine Estates, Niebaum Coppola, Robert Mondavi Winery, Dutton Ranch, Hall Wines and Silver Oak Cellars.

The Wine Institute, which advocates statewide for public policy friendly to the industry, sent Thompson $10,000. So did Constellation Brands, one of the global giants.

SHARE AND SHARE ALIKE One of the peculiarities of the American political system is that the money contributed to help one campaign often winds up in the hands of another, or in the service of local causes. It’s another process Thompson has learned to navigate capably.

He received 17 donations directly from other campaigns, including those of Napa County Supervisor Liz Alessio, Sonoma County Supervisor Rebecca Hermosillo, state Assembly members Cecelia Aguiar-Curry and Chris Rogers, and Reps. John Garamendi of California and Marilyn Strickland of Washington.

The individual donations flowing to Thompson reveal a tightly interconnected web of local pols, many of whom have a record of endorsing one another - and of endorsing Thompson, dean of North Bay Democrats. He got money from Santa Rosa Mayor Mark Stapp, St. Helena Mayor Paul Dohring, Cotati Vice Mayor Sylvia Lemus, state Sen. Chris Cabaldon and City Council members Gerard Guidice of Rohnert Park, Ariel Kelley of Healdsburg, Beth Painter of Napa, and Jack Ding and John Gurney of Sonoma.

Four of five Napa County super- visors contributed to Thompson’s campaign.

And money moves in the other direction, too. Over his tenure, Thompson has donated more than $3.5 million to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic presidential candidates, and has floated upward of $305,000 to local labor councils and local Democratic parties.

Jones shares in almost none of that swapping. He sent a $5,000 check to Napa County Supervisor Joelle Gallagher in September. She returned the money.

WHO’S WHO IN THE 4TH DISTRICT Beyond PACs and wine titans, Thompson counts as allies the type of community leaders you might expect to find in his camp after representing most of the region for decades.

That includes donations from at least 15 Indian tribes, including five based in Sonoma or Lake counties.

Other notables among Thompson’s benefactors: Santa Rosa philanthropists Jean Schulz and Connie Codding, Sonoma County District Attorney Carla Rodriguez, Napa developer George Altamura, Napa County Sheriff Oscar Ortiz, retired 49ers general manager Carmen Policy (who lives in St. Helena), Sonoma County Farm Bureau Executive Director Dayna Ghirardelli and Megan Chin, a chef/owner at the French Laundry restaurant.

Jones’ most well-known donors aren’t local. They are Steve Kerr, coach of the Golden State Warriors - and a member of the advisory board of the American Dream Institute, an organization Jones formed - and the Warriors’ general manager, Mike Dunleavy.

ONE KEY SIMILARITY The two men leading the charge for the Democratic nomination in the 4th District have veered in two highly divergent paths while stacking their campaign accounts. But they have wound up at practically the same place.

As 2026 began, Mike Thompson’s campaign had $1.9 million in cash on hand. Eric Jones’ had $1.8 million. It’s a race that is likely to remain hotly contested, and lucrative, into June - and because of California’s “top two” primary system, possibly until Election Day in November.

You can reach Phil Barber at 707-521-5263 or phil.barber@ pressdemocrat.com.