Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Who is Eric Jones, the candidate seeking to unseat Mike Thompson in Congress?

And who is funding his campaign?

Four mailers and a canvasser handout…. so far.

By Roberta Millstein

With the increasingly regular appearance of glossy mailers from Eric Jones’s campaign seeking to replace Mike Thompson as the representative for Congressional District 4 (which includes Davis), I thought it might be helpful if I shared what I have learned about Jones’s background.  I haven’t seen anything inaccurate per se in those mailers or in his ballot statement,[1] but what is there seems quite partial and thus misleading with respect to both his background and who is funding his campaign.

To be clear, I am not a reporter and have never pretended to be.  What follows is all widely available information (I will footnote all of my sources) and I don’t think Jones is trying to hide any of it.  But he’s not really mentioning it either, and I think it might be relevant for at least some voters.

Let’s start with Jones’s background because that sets the stage for his donations.  Jones graduated with an economics degree from Yale University and worked at JP Morgan in 2012.[2]  Shortly thereafter, he left JP Morgan for Dragoneer Investment Group; his LinkedIn page says that he was a “Dragoneer Investment Group Partner, Healthcare and Internet” for 12 yrs 7 mos, 2013 – Jul 2025.  Not long after that, in September 2025, he declared his candidacy.  His LinkedIn page also says that he is a Founder of the American Dream Institute, 2024 – present and a Principal of The Rachel and Eric Jones Foundation, 2021-present.  The year 2021 is also the year he (partially) relocated from San Francisco to Napa, making him eligible to run in what is now (since Prop 50) District 4.[3]  Jones has never held public office and still has a home in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights.[4]

According to the SF Chronicle, “Jones spent $1 million to start the [American Dream Institute]. To learn more about whether the stories he was hearing resonated with a wider audience, he commissioned polling that found many young, working-class voters still had doubts about whether they could afford a house… And their polling also found something that 80% of young conservative and 90% of young progressive respondents agreed on: Billionaires and corporations should pay more in taxes — a core progressive principle… [The institute] is recruiting online influencers and paying them for the anonymized data showing what their audiences are listening and responding to. Then they plan to synthesize that data and see how American Dream’s core messages can relate to what’s being discussed online by younger people. Then they will pitch those messages back to the influencers in the hope that they share it with their audiences.”[5]

As for his 12+ years as a venture capitalist with Dragoneer Investment Group, that has clearly set the stage for his run for the House. Quoting Phil Barber of The Press Democrat: “Jones’ campaign is largely financed by people working in venture capital — the industry in which he used to work — along with tech, private equity and hedge funds.”[6]  Jones contrasts those individual donations with the PAC donations that Mike Thompson receives and Jones refuses, but Thompson’s “supporters have been questioning the challenger’s reliance on money flooding in from outside the sprawling district.”[7]  As of the writing of Barber’s article, “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.”[8]  In particular, “At least eight current Dragoneer executives contributed $7,000 each to Jones’ campaign, as did two of their spouses.”[9]

Moreover: “Some donors are kind enough when filing campaign donations to list their occupation as “venture capitalist.” It’s [sic] 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 Perkins — are 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.”” [10]  (You can view the official FEC filings of donations to his campaign here.  Click on the “Occupation” or “Employer” tabs).

Does it matter that Jones dramatically de-emphasizes his time as a venture capitalist and yet most of his money comes from venture capitalism — while heavily criticizing Thompson for taking PAC money?  And while claiming to be a progressive even though he has no political track record?  Does it matter that he has lived in the district for only a short time while clearly still retaining strong ties to San Francisco?  Does it matter that his American Dream Institute has sought to perfect and promulgate (through seemingly spontaneous “influencers”) the messages that people want to hear?

I leave each reader to answer these questions for themselves.

[Note: There are two followup articles to this article, one which describes Eric Jones’s close connections to a Super PAC that is pouring large sums of money into his run for Congress (link here) and a later update reflecting $1.1 million spent on ads, including an Orwellian mailer (link here)].


[1] Calling himself a “Businessman/Nonprofit Executive,” here is how Jones describes himself on his ballot statement:
“As a father to two young children, I’m proud (and lucky) to call Napa home. Growing up, my mother worked two jobs as a nurse to keep food on the table. My father was a disabled veteran and my brother enlisted at 19 years old. In tough times, my family relied on food stamps and Medicaid to get by. As a first-generation college graduate, I worked my way through school. Nothing was handed to me.

In my career, I’ve grown healthcare businesses that have created thousands of jobs in Northern California. We’ve placed doctors, nurses, and therapists in high-need communities. Through my nonprofit, we support young and working-class voices, uplifting the American Dream. I’ve never forgotten where I came from.”

[2] https://www.sonomanews.com/2026/02/03/sonoma-valley-democrats-to-host-feb-9-forum-for-mike-thompson-eric-jones-and-trevor-merrell/

[3] https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/corporate-pacs-vs-silicon-valley-sharply-different-fundraising-paths-for-democratic-rivals-mike-thompson-eric-jones-in-4th-district-race-for-congress

[4] https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/eric-jones-mike-thompson-house-21033293.php

[5] https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/american-dream-institute-democrat-20824926.php

[6] https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/corporate-pacs-vs-silicon-valley-sharply-different-fundraising-paths-for-democratic-rivals-mike-thompson-eric-jones-in-4th-district-race-for-congress

[7] https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/corporate-pacs-vs-silicon-valley-sharply-different-fundraising-paths-for-democratic-rivals-mike-thompson-eric-jones-in-4th-district-race-for-congress

[8] https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/corporate-pacs-vs-silicon-valley-sharply-different-fundraising-paths-for-democratic-rivals-mike-thompson-eric-jones-in-4th-district-race-for-congress

[9] https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/corporate-pacs-vs-silicon-valley-sharply-different-fundraising-paths-for-democratic-rivals-mike-thompson-eric-jones-in-4th-district-race-for-congress

[10] https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/corporate-pacs-vs-silicon-valley-sharply-different-fundraising-paths-for-democratic-rivals-mike-thompson-eric-jones-in-4th-district-race-for-congress

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

35 responses to “Who is Eric Jones, the candidate seeking to unseat Mike Thompson in Congress?”

  1. Joe Verseput

    Roberta, I appreciate the effort you put into this and the sourcing. That said, some of the framing here points readers toward conclusions that aren’t really supported when you look at the full data.

    Eric’s background—including his time in venture capital—is public and not something he’s tried to minimize. But describing the campaign as “largely financed” by that industry doesn’t line up with the FEC filings. About 5% of his fundraising comes from individuals working in venture capital. That’s a small share, not the dominant force it’s being portrayed as.

    And it’s important to be precise about what that actually means—these are individual contributions, not PAC money. They’re people, not corporate entities, and they don’t come with the same expectations or influence as industry PAC funding.

    No single donor accounts for more than 0.25% of total funds raised. That’s a broad donor base, not a concentrated one.

    His donor network also overlaps with Ro Khanna, who has built a national progressive coalition and has even pushed reforms to limit PAC and big-money influence in politics. That context matters when characterizing who supports campaigns like this.

    It’s also worth noting what isn’t part of Eric’s funding: he has not taken PAC money from oil, tobacco, or PG&E. That’s a clear contrast voters can evaluate.

    On outside spending, Axios has already reported roughly $750K in attack ads being booked against him—funded by corporate interests that aren’t really part of this analysis.

    For transparency, I’m his brother and volunteering on the campaign. But the numbers are public, and I’d encourage readers to look directly at the FEC filings rather than rely on a partial interpretation of them.

    Appreciate you contributing to the discussion.

    1. Thank you for weighing in, Joe. But I do feel as though Eric minimizes his time as a venture capitalist. That title does not appear on his ballot statement. And if it is anywhere on his website, it is well buried. It does say “Throughout his career, he has created thousands of jobs in healthcare and education companies in California,” which I guess is one way of describing venture capitalism, but it’s certainly not what leaps to mind when one reads that phrase.

      As for whether PAC money is different from money from the venture capitalists and tech contributions, I’ll leave that to the reader to decide. I will say that it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to me, especially given that all PAC money isn’t “bad” per se. Once again, though, the contributions from Silicon Valley aren’t exactly something that people would learn from any of the campaign materials — thus my article. I have looked at the FEC filings (I do link to them) and I see things like the following:

      Top 10 occupations of donors with amounts donated from 7/1/2025-12/31/20205:

      INVESTOR – $220,550.00
      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER – $207,750.00
      NOT EMPLOYED – $200,750.00
      RETIRED – $169,950.00
      PARTNER – $90,750.00
      PRESIDENT – $64,500.00
      FOUNDER – $60,251.00
      VENTURE CAPITALIST – $54,000.00
      MANAGING PARTNER – $46,800.00
      CO-FOUNDER – $41,000.00

      Here are the top 10 by company:

      N/A $391,700.00
      DRAGONEER INVESTMENT GROUP $51,550.00
      VINE PROJECTS $21,000.00
      TARRANT CAPITAL IP, LLC $21,000.00
      MONGODB $21,000.00
      TPG CAPITAL $14,000.00
      AERA TECHNOLOGY $14,000.00
      FUTURE CONSULTING $14,000.00
      CREDO $14,000.00
      TPG $14,000.00

      Again, I’ll let readers decide whether that is important to them or not, and whether it sounds like “standing up to corporate special interests,” as one flyer says.

  2. Joe Verseput

    Roberta, I appreciate you taking the time to dig into filings and share sources — that kind of transparency is important.

    Where I see it differently is on the influence piece. I’m not sure why the distinction between individual donors and PAC money wouldn’t matter more here. PACs are organized specifically to influence legislation and policy — that’s their purpose. And there is real corporate PAC money, including significant spending in this race, that represents a much more direct form of influence than individuals with certain job titles choosing to donate.

    I also think part of this leans on inference. Listing donor occupations alongside the data can suggest a broader conclusion about influence, but at the end of the day those are still individuals, not coordinated entities.

    On Eric’s background, it’s fair to have a preference for how prominently “venture capitalist” should be listed — that’s a reasonable opinion. But I’ve also seen a lot of focus on his title and who donated, and not much discussion of his actual plans, policies, or goals.

    I’ll be upfront that I’m biased, but I do believe he’s a genuinely thoughtful and decent person. More importantly, I think he should be evaluated on what he’s proposing to do, not just how his background is framed.

    And more broadly, I don’t see how anyone without some level of financial stability or support could realistically run for Congress without becoming dependent on the PG&Es, Chevrons, Lockheeds — or even companies like Philip Morris — that fund campaigns across the board, including our incumbent. That’s a bigger structural issue that goes well beyond one candidate’s résumé.

    1. Honestly, I don’t know what all of the donations from venture capitalists and tech folks outside the district mean. Are they coordinated? You say that they aren’t, but there is no way for someone like me to know that. I do agree with you that we need to do better about getting corporate money out of politics and do away with Citizens United. I just don’t have confidence that Eric is the person to do that. Perhaps I am biased against venture capitalists. I will cop to that. Too many of them seeking to milk (bilk?) people out of their money. Does that mean that Eric is like that? Does that mean that all the big donors to his campaign are like that? No, not necessarily, but it would make them different from the norm.

      As for PACs, as I said, there are good and bad. Quoting one of the articles I linked to already, but this time about Garamendi’s contributions:

      “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.”

      None of these PACs bothers me in the slightest. In fact, most are arguably in his favor, certainly considering the district as a whole.

      The article continues about Garamendi’s PAC donations:

      “His top contributors in 2025 included First Foundation Bank ($15,148), the Tractor Supply Company PAC ($10,000), the American Crystal Sugar Company 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.”

      Some of these bother me, some of these don’t. The ag ones, in particular, are kind of what you’d expect for someone representing this district. So, now it comes down to, am I a big Mike Thompson fan? No, I am not. I wouldn’t mind someone younger and more progressive, but again, I don’t see Eric as being that person.

      Which brings me to the issues. Right, I didn’t talk about them in this article, although I have talked about them elsewhere. Here I just wanted to focus on the financials because people can read the issues for themselves on the flyers and on his website, etc. What I see there strikes me as fairly vague, maybe slightly left of Mike Thompson, but not enough to make me jump ship given everything else. And fwiw, a lot of people are finding the references to taking on PG&E baffling given that it would not really be his purview as a member of the House.

      As this is already getting long, I’ll just mention the careers of the four people challenging John Garamendi in the *other* part of Davis (given our Prop 50 gerrymander): a career in public service as an international analyst for FINRA, where he helped regulate finance to benefit and protect working Americans; an engineer and manager, the last 30 of which were for a railway locomotive company, now chief technology officer of CyberTran, a solar-powered ultralight rail transit and freight startup company; 33 years working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a data manager and instructor, of which seven were spent training agricultural officers in 35 of California’s 58 counties and now a business owner specializing in small business website development; a policy analyst at a Bay Area public health nonprofit. (Info is from https://www.lodinews.com/news/article_ff944f5c-7d28-4753-98a3-8f140c9ca8ff.html). So yes, financial stability. But I see these careers as different from being a venture capitalist. I am guessing that you all found that “venture capitalist” didn’t poll very well.

  3. Joe Verseput

    I’d like to re-extend the offer to have some coffee and sit down with me and Eric at your convenience – that might help get some clarity on his character and goals for the district

    1. I appreciate the offer. But frankly, I have been burned in the past by politicians who were friendly and easy to talk to, but the things they said to me were not things that they held to. Now I only judge candidates based on what they say in public (and it’s hard enough to hold them to those). I have no doubt that Eric is thoughtful and decent, as you say in your other comment. There are plenty of thoughtful and decent people who don’t garner my vote all things considered.

  4. Ron O

    Skimmed through this – didn’t know he was a venture capitalist. But several weeks ago, someone showed up at my door asking me to sign a petition for this candidate (I’m pretty sure) in order to avoid paying the usual fee to have his name on the ballot. I did not sign that petition. I was also asked an absurd question by the guy seeking my signature, which was actually a series of questions blended into one question – apparently intended to cause me to “agree” with this candidate. But the manner in which this was presented was an insult to anyone with an ounce of intelligence/critical thinking – regardless of one’s political opinions.

    But if you’re asking “who” Eric Jones actually is – he’s the guy who’s going to lose to Mike Thompson.

  5. Oliver Fiehn

    That’s an interesting debate. Well. I would love to see a regular ‘common Jane or Joe’ take on incumbents. But they may neither have connections nor money, and yes, to break through the wall of incumbents, you may need connections and money. So, myself, yes, I would like to see more fight over seats, so that the voters have a clear say.

    Per Wikipedia, Thompson has voted several times to weaken the Clean Water Act. Do we like that? Yet, he’s been endorsed by the Sierra Club at least in 2010 (what about since then?). Well… we don’t know what position Eric Jones would have on water politics. Clearly, California’s water politics is broken and won’t work in a changing climate. Mike Thompson has defended the ‘century old California water politics’, according to Wikipedia. Not a good argument for me to vote for Thompson.

    Thompson is 75 years old and voted 100% with Biden. Was Biden always right? Maybe we need a change in our politicians (independent of age), but for that, I’d like to know the positions better (…and yes, to see if we can TRUST the candidates, which may be behind Roberta’s comments).

    What we actually need, for all candidates, is a panel of questions from an independent source that asks for relevant positions of all candidates, no matter the party or the money or the connections. I know of people who think now is the time to do that!

    1. Thanks, Oliver, I fully agree. As I mentioned in my other comment, I don’t see Thompson as my ideal candidate and would like a challenger I could really get behind. Trust is definitely a big part of what I am needing… and someone with more of a political background (city council, county supervisor, etc) could give us that. It doesn’t help that we don’t really have much to go on except Eric’s word. A panel of questions from an independent source would be great!

  6. Mary Nisson

    Thank you, Roberta Millstein, for your comprehensive report, and thanks to Joe Verseput for an equally well considered reply.
    Happy “Autism Awareness, Acceptance, and Alliance Month”!! (Addition of the word “Alliance” is my own — UN, US and local agencies each have their own phrasing).
    I am Mary Nisson, Davis resident and UCD alum — class of 1984, B.A., Economics. I’m also the aging Caregiver-parent of an adult Davis resident with Level 2 Autism and some co-occurring conditions. How grateful I feel to finally be in the process of handing over caregiving responsibilities to CA-DDS/ ACRC-funded support staff into the Home & Community Based “Inclusive” life system, that has officially replaced the heartbreakingly routine institutionalization of yesteryear! However, I must sadly report that there are those who try to carefully avoid being overheard when they subtly suggest that a return to the pre-ADA institutionalization would be fiscally advantageous to both government and to those members of the younger generation supporting our tax base. I have yet to learn of Mr. Jones’s feeling about the financial realities of community “Inclusion” of people in need of staffing in order to live safely (“Level 2” and “Level 3” autism, down syndrome, etc).
    However, due to his many years in office, I know MUCH about Representative Thompson’s advocacy on behalf of our district’s vulnerable disabled and senior residents — especially the “low income” (the Poor). For example, Mike Thompson was among the first to request the construction of a Memorial Wall to honor those people with disabilities who had died at the now-closed institution in the city of Glen Ellen in Sonoma County (Sonoma Eldridge Developmental Center). Representative Thompson has also repeatedly advocated for an update to SSI’s draconian penalty against poor Seniors of age 65+ to be able to save more than $2000 while applying for SSI prior to becoming seriously ill or disabled, thereby increasing their chances of homelessness while awaiting the approval of their SSI applications (which, ironically, causes illness and death among lower-immunity groups such as those age 65+).
    I have yet to spot any mention of an equal level of commitment to “my people” from young Mr. Jones, but admittedly share the challenge of being overly busy with most other voters, and haven’t had a chance to speak with Mr. Jones to learn his plans in support of Poor (“low income”) residents of Davis, of Yolo County, and of our congressional district, and to clarify how his “Low Income Seniors and Adults with Disabilities” Platform would be an improvement over those of Representative Mike Thompson.

    In contrast, I believe that Representative Thompson possesses an advantage over Mr. Jones with Aging Senior Voters such as myself in that he has spent decades proving himself a true friend to seniors and to his district’s residents with disabilities. Therefore, I look forward to hearing more from Mr. Jones on this significant advocacy topic.

    Thank you again, writers, for this opportunity to speak out in solidarity with Poor Aging Caregivers of Adults with Autism and other types of Disabilities during this, “Autism Awareness, Acceptance, and Allies Month 2026”.

    1. Mary, thank you for raising these issues and bringing your perspective. These are indeed very important.

      1. Mary Nisson

        You are most welcome, and thank you for responding. Back on April 19, I only saw a couple people posting in reply, so I’m happy today to witness a larger discussion.

  7. Nancy Price

    Roberta and Joe, thanks for the articles good information to have for this election to decide on whom to vote for.

  8. Dave Hart

    I have had two in person canvassers, both under 30 years ole, knock on my door for Eric Jones. I engaged them both. One was very progressive, the other less educated and more libertarian in his outlook. Both felt that it was time for a change and conveyed what I believe to be a common feeling among people under 35 that the world is changing fast and feel that some of my fellow geezers (I’m over 75 and reserve the right to use the term) are not keeping up. I must say, at Thompson’s, Matsui’s and Garamendi’s age, there should be clear succession planning going on so we know who they see as their replacements. I’m not seeing it. That worries me. Garamendi, of the three, is still a vital force and connecting with constituents meaningfully. Thompson seems like he has made a career out of keeping his head down and out of sight until very recently. I like the spirit of someone who is shedding the past shell and saying that they want to face the current political situation with new eyes. Jones checks those boxes with me and I am not afraid that people he knows who have made money are not afraid to help him out.

    1. It very much scares me when it sounds like someone is saying they are supporting Eric Jones because of his age and because they like what he has to say. I feel like that sort of approach makes us very vulnerable to deception. I hope that isn’t what you’re saying. As I have said repeatedly, I share the desire for a younger candidate. But that is not sufficient for me. Is it a good sign that his former coworkers support him? Maybe? It depends on what it is that they think he will be doing. Venture capitalism is not known for its progressivism.

      1. Dave Hart

        People vote for whom they feel that connects best with them. It’s not based on policy pronouncements or staying safely inside the party lane. It is because Thompson is so low profile that younger people don’t see him as an energetic fighter and may raise the “age” flag in their own speech, but it’s deeper than that.

  9. Joe Verseput

    Appreciate everyone keeping this civil and actually engaging on real issues like support for disabled and low-income residents, seniors, water in California, the environment, and wildfire risk—those are the kinds of conversations that matter.

    I’ll pass along the concerns raised here so they’re addressed directly. For context, there was an Indivisible Yolo event with questions submitted for both candidates from nonpartisan attendees, and the endorsement vote came out 49–24 in Eric’s favor.

    He’s also not new to this—he has real experience in healthcare and has worked with different presidential administrations on legislation. I think once people take a look at his plans around senior care and childcare, it gives a clearer picture of how he approaches supporting seniors and working families.

    Once the next town hall in Davis is announced for May, I’d invite everyone to come with an open mind and ask the hard questions directly

    1. Dave Hart

      The Davis Enterprise ran the results of an interview with Eric Jones. Regarding health care, and on the issue of it, he was focused on maternal health. He made unequivocal statements that this is possibly the most important area of preventative care for public policy to focus on because it also affects the health of children and he was also very supportive of funding midwife services. He got my ear. I like his approach.

    2. Mary Nisson

      Thanks for that reminder about the council meetings, Joe, which reminds me to inform this group of the following:
      During the pandemic, immunity-vulnerable homebound seniors and other homebound adults with disabilities could participate via Zoom. However, as of the announcement of the pandemic’s conclusion, the online option has been discontinued. We do, however, continue to write emails, and can access the meeting minutes/ notes, etc.

  10. Gerri G.

    Joe,
    Please provide some actual detail here about Eric’s “real experience in health care”. What does that mean? Has he personally worked in health care settings? If you’re referring to venture capital investments in health care businesses, please specify which ones so voters can determine if they are aligned with Eric’s interests. Also, what legislation has Eric worked on, and with which presidential administrations?
    I find Eric’s campaign materials to be lacking in important details that support his claims about his accomplishments.

    1. Thank you, Gerri. These are great questions.

  11. ER

    Roberta;

    Thank you so much for this discussion. As i sift through all of Mr. Jones’ many expensive mailings, I appreciated this conversation cutting through the hype.

  12. Beverly Wilcox

    This just in: take a look at https://fec.gov updates dated 4/19/26. One of the mailers is from “New Leadership Now,” a San Francisco-based super-PAC. Its FEC filings show about $200,000 from two family trusts in San Francisco (i.e. not in our congressional district) and a balance on hand of $1,797,000, with no indication of where the other $1.5M came from.

    1. Thank you for sharing that. I saw that mailer from the super PAC but I didn’t know that it was in the FEC filings already. So, even if he isn’t “taking” money from super PACs, they are clearly in his corner. What do his dark money benefactors expect from him? Do we really think it’s for the benefit of the citizens of our district?

  13. Marjorie Longo

    Thank you for your analysis. When so many fancy flyers show up in my mailbox it does throw up red flags. I wonder if most people feel that way and if it’s self-defeating for the candidate.

  14. Don Shor

    It would be great if Mr. Jones or his brother would let us know what his positions are on : (1) California Forever, the land development project in Solano County, and (2) whether he feels California should be able to regulate AI, or if only federal regulations should control that industry. Thanks.

    1. Oliver Fiehn

      Don Shor (and everyone): thanks to bringing this conversation back to policies, rather than donors. I am not sure that a US house member would have a say on the question whether or not states should be able to regulate AI, but an opinion on that would be good, from both Thompson and Jones. Second, the question on land use (and don’t forget water use) is also more a California question than (at least as the California Forever question implies) a federal question. Nevertheless, I agree, to understand a candidate’s thinking, such questions are fine.
      Since this conversation is still under the topic “who funds Jones”, I do commend candidates to at least try breaking through the wall of incumbents. For that, you need money. At least, Eric Jones does get noticed.

      That’s a good thing for democracy, to have a choice. I only wish we had more than two parties. Or actually, I wish every vote would count, i.e. not just electing a specific candidate in a district, but dividing seats up according to the percentages that parties would get in an election. There are many countries to have a combined system of local representation plus tallied-up-percentage representation. That would force a momentum for Republicans in California to at least make a reasonable effort to talk about policies, not just about the King.

      1. The two reasons I think it’s important to talk about Eric Jones’s donors are:

        1) He has brought up the issue of Thompson’s donors. So, if those words turn out to be a bit hypocritical, as I think they are (and I will probably write more about this later today), I think it’s important to point that out. Certainly the Eric Jones campaign thinks talking about donors is important, and

        2) Jones has no track record because he has never held political office. He began his political campaign a mere months from resigning as a venture capitalist. Without a track record, it’s hard to know whether to trust his word. Let’s say he says that he is against California Forever. Well, maybe he is and maybe he isn’t. How do we know what he really believes and what he would really do if he were in office? I mean, politicians not sticking to their promises is so common as to not be remarkable, but here we don’t have much to go on. So it becomes even more relevant to follow the money — to see who his donors are. Again, hopefully more on this later today.

        That being said, I agree with you about needing reforms to our whole political system.

      2. Oliver Fiehn

        I understand. But still, your arguments means that candidates should become politicians first (to get a track record), e.g. on city councils, on county boards, before they run for any higher office. Is that what we want? That would mean that we don’t want successful artists, businesspeople, athletes, scientists to run, because they don’t have a track record. Actually, I would like to see those people in congress. Not just career-track politicians. In this current Congress, four (!!) Democrats have died of old age. Were these four people, and their other 80+ year old colleagues, really so much more vital for democracy that they should not have stepped down? Thank you, Mr. Biden….

      3. Yes, I do think it’s good for people to serve in some sort of political capacity, to gain relevant experience, before moving to higher office. Plenty of people have done it and I don’t think it precludes artists and others from running.

        For example, it didn’t preclude AOC, then a bartender, from running. Some would say she didn’t have any prior political experience. But in fact, AOC was an intern for U.S. senator Ted Kennedy and worked on the Bernie Sanders campaign prior to running for office. I think those are other ways that someone can gain political experience as well as give voters some indication of where they stand (not that AOC is identical to either Ted Kennedy or even Bernie Sanders in her views, though she is obviously close to Bernie — who is also not young yet is still very effective, IMO).

        The relevant point here is that lack of political experience and track record combined with a work and donor history of venture capitalism/Silicon Valley is a very problematic combination. I don’t know what he really stands for and being young and charismatic doesn’t change that.

      4. Don Shor

        “I am not sure that a US house member would have a say on the question whether or not states should be able to regulate AI,”
        Of course they would.

        “the question on land use (and don’t forget water use) is also more a California question than (at least as the California Forever question implies) a federal question.”
        The project proposal involves land bordering a major military base, is situated in a major flood zone, has significant transportation and environmental impacts, would require water from any number of sources, and would affect the maritime industry.
        It’s the largest, most significant land use proposal for the region in modern history.

        I don’t know who you are or why you are choosing to answer for Mr. Jones on this topic. Are you associated with the campaign?
        As to the relevance to financial support for the candidate, the principals in those industries and projects (ai and Ca Forever) have considerable overlap. Look at who the CA Forever investors are. It would be important to know if any of them are donors to the Jones campaign.

      5. Oliver Fiehn

        Don, I am not speaking for or affiliated with any campaign. I am not even if favor of or opposed against a specific candidate. I am a member of the public, living in Davis. Is that okay for you?

      6. Dave Hart

        I absolutely agree with Don’s suggestion about asking both Eric Jones and Thompson this question regarding the California Forever development, or whatever is has been renamed to, is absolutely at the crux of where all of us are headed if we don’t take this kind of thinking seriously. People with $Billions have shown they can pretty much do (or get away with) whatever they want. For those of you reading who want to know what the big deal is about the Solano County proposed mega city, read about “The Network State”, by Balaji S. Srinivasan

  15. […] if any?  This article aims to shed a bit of light on these questions.  It is a follow-up to my earlier article discussing the direct campaign contributions from Jones’s former venture capitalist co-workers […]

  16. Mary Nisson

    Wow! What a great discussion!!
    It occurs to me that we are only “Davisites”.
    I apologize if I missed a comment from one of you who may be keeping up with the discussions and trends in other cities and counties within our district.
    Are some of you doing that?
    Have other counties and cities taken polls to reveal how much it would make a difference to our discussions if one of these candidacies is very strong throughout the entire district?

Leave a reply to Oliver Fiehn Cancel reply