Affordable California attacks Mai Vang's donors — but what about Doris Matsui's?

The newest television commercial attacking congressional candidate Mai Vang comes with a simple message: Follow the money.

That might be good advice — including for supporters of Rep. Doris Matsui.

story continued below

Affordable California 2026, a recently formed super PAC that has reported spending $400,000 opposing Vang, is airing a commercial attacking the Sacramento City Council member over campaign contributions she received during her political career.

The ad opens with Vang saying she cannot be bought before an announcer declares, “So, let's check the receipts.”

It then lists contributions the group says Vang received from casino interests, developers, PG&E and others before concluding that she received $60,000 in “corporate cash.”

“Mai Vang can't be bought,” the announcer says. “She already has been.”

Affordable California 2026 is an independent expenditure committee. Federal law prohibits such outside groups from coordinating their expenditures with candidates or their campaigns.

Federal Election Commission records show Affordable California 2026 has reported $400,000 in independent expenditures opposing Vang.

Who is financing Affordable California 2026 remains another question.

As Elk Grove News previously reported, the committee registered with the FEC in August. Because it is a quarterly filer, its October quarterly report covering activity through Sept. 30 is due Oct. 15.

The FEC says newly formed committees must report their activity through the close of books for their first required report. That filing should provide the first substantial look at the money flowing into Affordable California 2026.

While voters wait to learn who is financing the attack on Vang, the commercial raises another question: What happens when the “check the receipts” standard is applied to Matsui?

There are plenty of receipts.

According to the FEC, Matsui for Congress reported $936,963.82 in contributions from other political committees through June 30 during the 2025-26 election cycle. By comparison, her campaign reported $840,023.57 in individual contributions.

Those committee contributions come from a broad assortment of industries.

An analysis of FEC records lists telecommunications PACs as the largest categorized interest among Matsui's committee contributors, followed by technology, pharmaceuticals, electric utilities and medical interests.

And there are some particularly interesting names given the subject matter of the Affordable California commercial.

The ad specifically invokes a tenuous PG&E link while criticizing Vang's fundraising. Yet Matsui for Congress reported receiving $4,874.22 from PG&E Corporation Employees EnergyPAC on May 22. Records also show earlier contributions from the PG&E PAC during the current election cycle.

Matsui's campaign has also received contributions from PACs associated with major defense contractors.

Lockheed Martin Employees' Political Action Committee reported giving Matsui for Congress $1,000 in October 2025. Employees of Northrop Grumman Corporation PAC is also listed among Matsui's 2026-cycle committee contributors, with $2,500.

None of that proves Matsui was “bought” by PG&E, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or any other contributor.

Nor does the mere existence of a campaign contribution establish that Vang was “bought” by the people and interests highlighted in Affordable California 2026's commercial.

Campaign contributions are legal, subject to federal, state and local laws depending on the office involved. Candidates routinely accept money from individuals, unions, businesses through permissible entities, political committees and organizations whose interests overlap with issues elected officials consider.

But that is precisely where Affordable California 2026's attack becomes politically interesting.

If accepting money from corporate-connected interests is supposed to make voters suspicious of Vang, voters might reasonably apply exactly the same test to Matsui.

Vang can also point to a distinction between some of the money being highlighted from her past and her current congressional campaign. Matsui, meanwhile, continues to receive substantial PAC contributions during the current election cycle.

But an outside group spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell voters to scrutinize Vang's contributors could nevertheless prompt voters, gadfly journalists and political opponents to look at the incumbent's contributors as well.

That could leave Matsui's campaign answering questions it did not ask for — about money from telecommunications companies, utilities, pharmaceutical interests and defense contractors, among others.

And beginning Oct. 15, voters should finally get an opportunity to examine another set of receipts: those showing who financed Affordable California 2026 itself.

There is an old political danger in throwing a punch that can be thrown back. Or maybe call it a boomerang.

Affordable California 2026 may want voters to follow Mai Vang's money. Some voters may decide to follow everybody's.

In other words, the attack potentially opens the attacker's own fundraising to scrutiny.