These special interests are spending big to influence which Democrats win L.A. seats in the Legislature

The California Legislature is poised to welcome one of its largest freshman classes in more than a decade, and special interest groups are spending millions on Democrat-versus-Democrat races in the November election to help decide which newcomer voters will send to Sacramento.

The independent campaigns bankrolled by giant tech companies, labor unions, law enforcement organizations and other major players at the state Capitol may sway the struggle between liberal and moderate lawmakers within the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority. The outcome could have a major effect on future laws on climate change and the environment, funding for schools and healthcare, criminal justice reform and worker and employer rights.

The stakes are high in four Democrat-on-Democrat races around Los Angeles, where more than $20 million has been funneled in from various political action committees seeking to boost their preferred candidates, according to Nov. 1 campaign finance records. Here’s who is running in those districts:

• Jessica Caloza, a former political staffer, and Franky Carrillo, a criminal justice reform advocate, are vying to represent Assembly District 52, which includes a swath of northeastern Los Angeles County and some or all of Glendale and East Los Angeles.
  
• John Yi, a former nonprofit leader, and Mark Gonzalez, the current district director for Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles), are head to head in the Assembly District 54 race, which includes Westlake, Chinatown, Koreatown and Boyle Heights.
  
• Sade Elhawary, a career organizer, and Efren Martinez, a small-business owner, are vying for the Assembly District 57 seat in South Los Angeles.
  
• Laura Richardson, a former member of Congress, and Michelle Chambers, a community justice advocate and former Compton City Council member, are running for Senate District 35 in south Los Angeles County. With more than $7 million spent by independent expenditure committees, the contest between Chambers and Richardson is the costliest election for state Senate, according to California Target Book, a comprehensive political database.
  

Here’s a look at how a few big spenders are trying to influence who L.A. voters send to Sacramento:

Big Oil

Who spent: Chevron, Phillips 66 and Valero Services Inc. were among the biggest financial backers of the “Coalition to Restore California’s Middle Class, Including Energy, Manufacturing and Technology Companies who Produce Gas, Oil, Jobs and Pay Taxes.” In total, the committee accumulated more than $11 million in contributions.

Whom they helped: The PAC spent about $700,000 in support of Laura Richardson, with most money going toward mailers. Richardson’s campaign said in a statement that she has not had any contact or connection with the independent committee. The PAC spent more than $50,000 against Richardson’s opponent, Michelle Chambers.

“They know I’m the only candidate in this race who will stand for a clean environment, affordable housing and workers’ rights, and they are doing everything in their power to stop that — including misleading voters with malicious lies,” Chambers said in a statement.

The PAC also spent more than $275,000 to support Efren Martinez and an additional $129,000 in opposition to Martinez’s opponent, Sade Elhawary.

“Big Oil opposes Sade because she fights for environmental justice,” a spokesperson for Elhawary wrote to The Times.

What they want: Support for the oil industry and its ongoing fights over policies to combat climate change and limit the increase of gas prices, a cause championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. California policymakers have outlined a plan for the state to be carbon neutral by 2045 and ban the sale of new, gas-powered cars by 2035. As steps have been taken to regulate drilling and place new regulations on gas prices, fossil fuel corporations have rallied against the measures and even vowed to take their case to court.

A Chevron spokesperson wrote in a statement that the company supported candidates of both parties who “share our belief in the importance of free enterprise, a strong economy, a reasonable regulatory regime and responsible energy development.”

Representatives from Phillips 66 declined to comment. Valero did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Labor unions

Who spent: Healthcare workers and teachers unions have poured millions of dollars into their preferred candidates’ campaigns.

Whom they helped: The unions have given more than $1 million to support Michelle Chambers, who received endorsements from SEIU California State Council and the California Teachers Assn. Their independent expenditure committees have been the biggest spenders in her race against Laura Richardson.

“As someone who was raised in a working-class family, I’m deeply proud to have earned the support of these organizations and I look forward to creating more well-paying jobs and advocating for workers here in this community as our next State Senator,” Chambers said in a statement.

The unions have also played a key role in opposing her opponent, spending about $2 million against Richardson.

“The big spending by groups opposing Laura’s candidacy is fueled by their desire to maintain the status quo and resist meaningful change,” Richardson’s campaign said in a statement.

The groups also spent about $500,000 in support of Sade Elhawary and more than $1 million against her opponent Efren Martinez.

Opportunity PAC, sponsored by teachers and nurses, and Families & Teachers United also collectively gave close to $200,000 to Mark Gonzalez. Opportunity PAC spent an additional $91,000 to oppose his rival, John Yi.

What they want: Unions have landed big wins in recent years, including better protections for fast-food workers and setting a minimum wage for medical employees at $25 an hour.

Tia Orr, the executive director of SEIU California, said in a statement that they wanted to support “pro-worker legislators” who would further their goals of raising wages, making healthcare and housing affordable for families and supporting the right to form a union.

“Working people are looking for more than a ‘D’ by a candidate’s name; we are looking for candidates like Sade Elhawary and Michelle Chambers who will put the needs of working people and our communities ahead of billionaires and corporate profits,” Orr said.

Uber

Who spent: Uber made a splash this year by dumping $30 million into its state committee in California called the Uber Innovation PAC.

Whom they helped: Uber spent $306,000 in support of Sade Elhawary.

Uber spent an additional $278,000 to support Laura Richardson and $278,000 in opposition to Richardson’s opponent, Michelle Chambers.

What they want: Uber has lobbied on a handful of tech bills this year that deal with autonomous vehicles and food delivery platforms, among other issues. Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy and communications of the west region, said in a statement that Uber “amplifies thoughtful candidates and campaigns” that it thinks are “willing to take on the tough challenges the state will face going forward including electrification, supporting small businesses, and repairing the state’s insurance markets.”

Prison guards and law enforcement

Who spent: Independent expenditure committees funded by correctional officers and law enforcement spent big in these races. Those interests have contributed to various PACs including Tomorrow California PAC, Asian Pacific Islander PAC, We Are One LA, Keep California Golden and Integrity California, which all received portions of their funding from the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., the state’s largest union, and Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents law enforcement officers.

Whom they helped: Integrity California spent $225,000 on mailers and digital ads for Efren Martinez. Martinez favors Proposition 36, the anti-crime ballot initiative widely supported by law enforcement. A campaign spokesperson for Martinez said that he is aligned with most of his district voters who also support that measure. We Are One LA, funded by correctional officers, spent $113,000 on consulting and mailers to support Martinez.

Integrity California PAC spent just under $220,000 to oppose Martinez’s opponent Sade Elhawary. Elhawary opposes Proposition 36 and, like many who do, aspires for California to shift away from a reliance on stiffer penalties for low-level crimes. PORAC, the police group, endorsed Martinez’s candidacy.

Integrity California and Keep California Golden spent more than $700,000 to oppose Michelle Chambers’ candidacy and Keep California Golden spent just under $500,000 in support of Laura Richardson in their state Senate race. PORAC, the police group, endorsed Richardson’s candidacy.

The Tomorrow California PAC, sponsored by correctional officers, spent just over $1.1 million supporting Jessica Caloza, making up half of the expenditures spent on her campaign. Her opponent, Franky Carrillo, is a criminal justice reform advocate who was exonerated on a wrongful murder conviction. His campaign is largely self-funded from a settlement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

The Tomorrow California PAC also gave $110,000 to a PAC for Mark Gonzalez, titled Communities United to Elect Mark Gonzalez.

What they want: Prison guards routinely lobby the Legislature over big budget decisions that affect their pay and benefits. They have also lobbied against legislation to limit the use of solitary confinement and grant inmates more visiting rights.

Nathan Ballard, a CCPOA spokesperson, said they want to improve the day-to-day lives of correctional officers. “Candidates earn our support based on whether they tend to support our goals,” he said. Those goals include a “laser focus” on “wages, safety, workplace conditions, health care, benefits, and professional development for those officers.”

The same goes for law enforcement, which has a major lobbying role in key policy decisions also dealing with prisons and criminal justice reform. Brian Marvel, the president of PORAC, said that it thoroughly evaluated each candidate to ensure they aligned with the union’s goals.