Eric Jones said there are no corporations involved in the PAC that backed him. That holds for corporate PAC money. The record also shows the PAC took 57 percent of the money itemized through May 28 from one donor, the wife of his former boss. He was interviewed on Sept. 22, 42 days before the Nov. 3 election against fellow Democrat Rep. Mike Thompson.
His claim that every Democrat on Ways and Means voted against H.R. 5378 was overstated. Sixteen of 18 voted no, and two did not vote. The interview also covered his years at Dragoneer Investment Group, his wealth, the debate schedule and his Our Revolution endorsement.
Where the public record, filings or his campaign’s written follow-up bears on an answer, a short paragraph follows it, set flush left below his indented words. Questions he answered in writing are marked and appear in his words. Stutters, false starts, small talk and interviewer filler were removed. The topics are grouped, not in the order asked.
Q: Please name me one actual roll-call vote where you’re to the left of Thompson and not just a vibe of vote.
Jones: Yep. So, couple. H.R. 5378. That was the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act. That was during the Biden administration. And it would have mandated transparency for inpatient and outpatient pricing at hospitals. That means that people kind of know, when you go to get a medical procedure, you know what you’re paying for. And it would have structurally just gone after pharmaceutical benefit managers, PBMs, which we all know are a big part of the problem with drug pricing. All the Ways and Means Democrats voted against that, despite party support, because they got pushback from the insurance industry.
I would say that’s the biggest piece of legislation we’ve had in health care in about a decade, and it was bipartisan, left and right. H.R. 1100, that was more recently. That was this Congress. That was a couple weeks before Eric Swalwell’s news came out. And it would have mandated the release of sexual assault records and harassment records against members of Congress.
The NDAA last year. That’s the National Defense Authorization Act. That was on December 17. To me, I think first and foremost, we should be focusing on veterans here and then veterans coming home and how do we help them adapt to civilian life and have a great life back in our country after they served us, served our nation. And I don’t think we need to be doubling the Pentagon budget, particularly when it can’t pass an audit. And the Democratic corporate establishment has been just a yes vote without question on military spending, basically forever. And my opponent has been kind of right there with them.
And then the last one will be, well, we had the CORCA Act more recently. There’s a ton here, but they kind of fit in the theme. Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, and this has not yet passed the Senate, but it passed the House, and it would allow small businesses to send visual ID, payment information, and other data back to the Department of Homeland Security for any person who enters a retail store, a business, a place of business. So it creates basically a surveillance net that spreads the entire United States. When you add that to what we’re seeing with Flock cameras and surveillance, I don’t have a problem with good policing. Our police forces need resources. They need more staff. I mean, they need more officers. So that, and again, this is not about public safety. It’s about surveillance.
H.R. 5378 passed 320 to 71 on Dec. 11, 2023, with Thompson voting no along with 30 other Democrats (source 1). Of the 18 Democrats on Ways and Means then, 16 voted no, two did not vote and none voted yes. Jones’s “all” is overstated, but his campaign’s restatement, that every committee Democrat who cast a vote voted no, is accurate.
The resolution is H.Res. 1100, not H.R. 1100, Rep. Nancy Mace’s measure on releasing harassment records. A motion to refer it passed 357 to 65 on Mar. 4, 2026, and Thompson voted yes (source 2). Rep. Eric Swalwell announced his resignation April 13, about five and a half weeks later, not “a couple weeks.”
The House passed the FY2026 NDAA Dec. 10, 2025, 312 to 112, with Democrats split 115 to 94, and the Senate passed it Dec. 17 (source 3). Jones’s December 17 is the Senate date, and “without question” does not describe House Democrats. Thompson voted yes.
The Pentagon failed its eighth consecutive audit on Dec. 19, 2025, as Jones said (source 22).
The Combating Organized Retail Crime Act is H.R. 2853. It passed the House May 12, 2026, 348 to 60, with Thompson among the yeas (source 4). The text does not define or list customer IDs or payment data.
The ACLU says the bill does not clearly specify what data can be shared (source 5). A Senate Judiciary spokesperson says the bill gives DHS no added enforcement authority.
Money came next, starting with the PAC backing him.
Q: So Thompson has already kind of called you out a little bit on taking PAC money. I need you to explain to the people how a PAC funded almost entirely by your old boss’s wife happened to show up defending you without you knowing anything?
Jones: So I should be clear. I was aware that that PAC had been formed because, as I understand it, that’s a fully disclosed independent expenditure committee. So you can see where all the money comes from. You can see where it’s spent. It’s different than the dark money super PACs that you hear about, where they’re hidden behind c4s, where you actually can’t see where the money comes from.
So because of that, when they filed it, they had to mention this race in the filing. So I was aware of that. So I knew that was happening. What I was not aware of, because we can’t communicate or coordinate with them, is how they would participate and how they would spend. I’ve been told that they entered the race in response to the two dark money super PACs that entered on behalf of my opponent.
And this is all kind of a mess, and I don’t like it. And this is, I would say, out of the hands of both Congressman Thompson and I. And I kind of ask that people give us both grace because I don’t think he stands for some of the things that the super PACs that work on his behalf in the primary. I don’t think that neither of us like what’s going on, and we do not have control over it. I will say that my former partner, Marc, he was the head of College Democrats nationally in college. He has a very similar story to me, and I trust him a lot in terms of the person and his character. His wife’s a Buddhist, they built the palliative care center at UCSF for kids. They’re good people, so I trust they’re doing this the right way. But it’s kind of where we are.
Now, I’ll say that if I had to make an argument as to why this is different, there are no lobbyists involved. There are no corporations involved. There are no special incentives involved in all of this. When PG&E or ExxonMobil or Lockheed Martin or Pfizer or, I’ll keep going, Tesla, when they spend money via PACs or via lobbying, they have a very clear intention, which is to create corporate profit. That’s literally what their job is to do.
And when individuals step up who share your values, who want to fight alongside you, I understand that people will ask questions about, okay, do their values align with mine? But they’re not corporations. They’re not lobbyists. They’re people, and they’ve gone to every extent to be transparent. And I think that’s different than dark money hidden behind corporate and special interest super PACs that have a very specific profit agenda, mostly tied to how people vote. That’s the difference.
The question’s “old boss’s wife” is Elisa Stad, wife of Dragoneer founder Marc Stad (source 19). New Leadership Now’s itemized receipts show 22 gifts from Apr. 17, 2025 through May 28, 2026, totaling $3,493,560 (source 6). Stad gave $2.0 million of that, 57 percent of the file.
The FEC summary shows $5.77 million in total receipts through Oct. 14, so $2.0 million is about 35 percent of the full total if she gave nothing after May 28.
Dan Gillespie, a Dragoneer partner, and the Gillespie Family Trust gave $625,000, and Maurice Duca of Santa Barbara gave $250,000. Those three donor families gave $2,875,000, 82 percent of the file. No PAC or corporate PAC gifts appear.
Jones’s “no corporations” holds as to corporate PAC money, but the committee’s money is concentrated in a few wealthy donors, several tied to venture and private equity.
Jones said the committee formed in response to two dark money super PACs for Thompson. Drop Site News reports the Blue Dog Action Fund spent $1.2 million for Thompson, $600,000 of it against Jones, with ad buys starting April 2, 2026 (source 8). That report does not name Blue Dog’s donors or a second group.
The Stads gave $3 million to launch a center at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, as Jones said (source 19). A 1998 Crimson item lists Marc Stad ’01 as vice president of the Harvard-Radcliffe Democrats, and Jones called him the head of the College Democrats nationally (source 20). That item does not mention a national role.
The questions then turned to his years at Dragoneer Investment Group.
Q: So you spent twelve years at a firm that holds stake in Discord and Roblox, both currently being sued by the Arkansas attorney general specifically for exposing children. Again, this is something Thompson has put out on his ads. What specifically are you planning on doing to that industry now that you’re not profiting from it?
Jones: Yeah. So I’ve never had any involvement with either of these companies. And to be clear, the reason why this has come up is because my old firm, one of the business lines is managing portfolios on behalf of pensions, endowments, and institutions. So for example, managing money for CalPERS and CalSTRS.
And in the management of those portfolios, my old firm would make recommendations to those companies to own certain stocks, and they own a diversified portfolio. And that’s the ownership you see here. There’s no, in a similar way, if anyone has a 401(k) or an IRA and they have a mutual fund in there for the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq, you also hold stakes in these two companies. So I’m only just highlighting that this is sort of guilt by association, and a lot of people in America are associated because these are companies that most people own if they own a diversified stock portfolio.
So it’s a little funny. It’s like saying that anyone who owns a stock is responsible for the behavior of that company, which is, I don’t think, quite a fair characterization.
Dragoneer led Discord’s $500 million round in September 2021, and its SEC filing for Sept. 30, 2024 lists 11.7 million Roblox shares (source 10). Leading a round is a direct investment by the firm, not index-style holdings. Jones’s campaign says he had no involvement with either company and is not employed by Dragoneer.
On the pensions, Dragoneer’s public profile describes its capital as coming from endowments, foundations, sovereign wealth funds and family offices, and it names neither CalPERS nor CalSTRS among its investors (source 21).
He was a Dragoneer partner until June 2025, according to his campaign. His 2025 House disclosure lists no Roblox, Discord or Carbon Health assets. The Arkansas attorney general announced suits against both companies June 22, 2026 (source 9).
Q: You live in a $4,600,000 house, and you’re running on affordability. What actually has gotten harder for you personally because of the cost of anything?
Jones: I still, unfortunately, get into arguments with my wife over the cost of groceries and when she doesn’t buy the store brand, because that’s the way I was raised, and it never leaves you. But, no, we are in a place of immense privilege where I’ll always feel the cost of things because I remember what it was like to decide to keep the thermostat with your mother based on the price of heating oil and kind of make those very visceral decisions.
But, no, we are so lucky. And it’s hard here because I’m speaking to a person that I used to be, but it wasn’t that long ago. It was about twenty years ago that we were on food stamps, Medicaid, the whole lot, and I remember that. And not only do I remember that, my community, my family, my brothers, my friends from where I grew up, and they’re all living that too. And I see it in my church.
I see it with my kids and their friends. But the point is none of that is the actual anxiety that you go through every day when you’re trying to just finish the day with more than a dollar in your pocket, or at least a dollar in your pocket. I remember that. I spent a lot of my life trying to run away from that and get out of it.
And now I don’t have to think that way, and it’s a gift. And I know what that gift feels like. And for those who are suspicious, I get it. We haven’t had great examples of people from business going to politics. That said, most of those folks have been in their sixties and seventies and eighties.
And I’m 35. And I started this process leaving when my son was born five years ago. So I did have a career in the private sector, which I’m very grateful for. But I hope that in the fullness of time, I will be remembered for my public service, and that’s going to be the bulk of my life.
His campaign says the figures he gave elsewhere, a $4.6 million house, about $8 million pulled in his final year and a tax rate near 60 percent, are his recollection and roughly accurate (source 11). His 2025 House disclosure reportedly lists $8,000,000 in Dragoneer salary and bonus for the preceding year, plus a $1 million deferred payment due by July 2026. A personal residence is not reported there.
His account of growing up on food stamps and Medicaid is self-reported and has not been confirmed.
Taxes and his own wealth followed.
Q: You’ve got up to $86,000,000 on paper and pulled roughly $8,000,000 from Dragoneer in your final year there. Do you support a wealth tax that actually applies to you, not a version with a carve-out shaped like your own portfolio? And do you support one steep enough to actually redistribute concentrated wealth, or one that just trims the edges of it?
Jones: So, yes. So, okay. Let me put it this way. We’ve committed to giving away all of our money and made a promise in the primary that for every dollar we raised, we put a dollar back into the community, and we’ve done that through various programs in our foundation. And I’ve never been happier doing this and making those decisions, but it took me a while to get here. And people like me should 100% contribute as much as they can and more. I’ve always paid close to a 60% tax rate. So, just the reality, I never went for any of the weird structures that people use.
So I think that’s right. And I think we should continue to tax people like me, and I’m not a billionaire. I’m not Nancy Pelosi. I’m not the Pelosi family either, anywhere close.
And actually, my opponent and I are quite in a similar situation. And I think that, yeah, everyone needs to contribute. And really, the big issue we have in America is that 55% of our wealth is held in unrealized capital gains and hasn’t been taxed. And if that’s never taxed, it’s handed in a step up to the next generation, our country won’t work. Everyone needs to contribute.
Press Democrat reporting puts his wealth between $18 million and $86 million (source 12). At the Oct. 8 forum he advocated a federal wealth tax (source 14). His answer here never said whether it would be steep enough to redistribute concentrated wealth.
The 55 percent figure is national, his campaign says: the share of American wealth held in unrealized gains. A Federal Reserve Board study estimates about 27 percent of all U.S. wealth, and 41 percent of the top 1 percent’s wealth, is unrealized gains (source 23).
The top combined federal and California marginal rate is about 52.7 percent on wages and about 54.1 percent on ordinary investment income, so a rate near 60 percent would exceed both (source 24). His campaign calls the 60 percent roughly accurate.
He said his campaign put a dollar back into the community for every dollar raised. His campaign did not provide a written pledge and offered filings for the Eric and Rachel Jones Foundation once they are public (source 11).
Jones added this on his own, without a question.
Jones: I’m not the case study of the person I want running for office. I do like that I have real experience to lend. I do like that I’m young. I’m a dad. I do like that I have experience being a kid on food stamps and welfare and understand what that’s like.
Like, reality check. I do like that I’ve worked a minimum wage job. Those things, I think, are a good thing. The fact that I have my own resources, both financially and from a network, that is what makes me uncomfortable.
So that’s why I like those questions, because I want people to know that. I hope I can be a bridge. It’s why I’ve signed a twelve-year term limit pledge. I want to be a bridge, and I want to create the opportunity where you don’t have to look like me to do this.
Q: And for me, what would cost you real money from your own donor class?
Jones: So, I mean, look. It’s kind of all of it. I am for progressive taxation because I think that with great power comes great responsibility to those who have much. It’s to those who much is given, much is expected.
I live by that mantra. And whether it’s Medicare expansion or a tax cut for the middle and working class, those are all things that I would happily, happily contribute to, and I think we should be. So I guess the answer is kind of all of it. Anything that helps people in America today have a shot at the American dream, that creates that foundation from which they succeed, like, I give it all up to make that possible.
Q: Tell me one position you actually hold that would cost you real money from your own donor class if you followed through on it in Congress.
Jones answered this question in writing.
Jones: Banning data centers in California, restricting AI usage for kids under 16, and taxing AI companies today.
I am going to take on that industry because it is the right thing to do for this district and for the next generation. Trillion-dollar corporations have operated without a single meaningful regulation while their products have reshaped childhood, consumed our water, and driven up our energy costs. I answer to the people in this district, and I am not going to look the other way because it is politically complicated.
The twelve-year term limit pledge is on his website, according to CalMatters (source 13). It is not in his county candidate statement.
In his itemized receipts through June 29, donors with CEO, founder, chair or president titles gave about $561,000, roughly 18 percent of his itemized individual money, mostly venture, private equity and tech executives (source 7). No PAC gave to his campaign.
Later questions turned to policy.
Q: You call yourself pro-family, and part of that is federal childcare. But universal childcare, the way it usually gets pitched, is just a nicer name for warehousing kids in underfunded facilities so parents can get back to being productive on somebody else’s schedule faster. Wouldn’t real paid leave and full health care come first if you actually meant it?
Jones: Yeah. So I’m glad you asked this because sometimes, like, I like saying childcare because it’s a known thing and people can immediately get what you’re saying, but this is the answer. I think that caregiving needs to be treated like a profession.
And whether it’s a man or a woman, paid leave and the opportunity to take care of your kids at home with appropriate support and training and actually be compensated for that, and that applies to grandparents too. We need to equalize across all versions of caregiving for children, for our parents, and people who are doing that need to be treated and compensated like a professional. And what that does is create quality. And it’s choice for you, whether you want to go back to work and have your kid in childcare or you want to stay at home for that period and have paid family leave. You want to, you know, move your grandparent and your mother or father in for a period of time.
All that should be open to families. That’s really what I mean. I just can’t put it in a quick bullet.
Q: If federal agents are operating in this district and acting outside of the law, would you back a city using its own police to stop them, or would you issue a statement?
Jones: I don’t like the idea of federal forces and state and local officers becoming violent with each other. That feels like a dark place in America. So to answer your question specifically, the first thing I would do was put my body in front of them. I would go out there, show why this is wrong, do what I would call the basic acts of civil disobedience. So you do that loudly, do that peacefully, and you make it aware.
I just, I can’t, in my position, say that, you know, I don’t encourage violence of any kind. And it’s hard because the tools we have in our government are both tools that have violence at their disposal, and that’s what makes me really uncomfortable. That’s why I struggle to answer this. Does that make sense? Like, the word “stop” is a funny word.
Q: I understand your hesitation. I would argue that they are bringing the violence to these communities.
Jones: I completely agree, and I would hope to use all levels of accountability.
And I would hope that if the accountability measure was local police, again, I’m not a legal expert, that we could carry that out in a way that wouldn’t create more violence. That’s my consideration, to be very clear there. I wouldn’t just issue a statement. I’d probably get there myself as fast as possible and try to resolve an issue. And we’ve seen this, you know, with different leadership in different parts of the country, where mayors have stepped up, put themselves kind of in harm’s way, almost, so to speak, and mediated that, and it’s been pretty effective when done right.
But it’s challenging. It’s hard.
The last questions concerned debates, endorsements and outside projects.
Q: Nine debates. Do you want more debates with them, or are you good with this? What’s already going on?
Jones: I would love more debates. So we have one debate. We have a forum in Marysville that was open to the public, but it wasn’t broadcast to the public. And then we have a forum with voters. We’re very grateful they stepped up to do that.
They’re a very short format, and they’re not quite to the degree of open dialogue. And I think that a real moderated debate, getting to the real crux of the issues, versus forums which have more prepared remarks and prepared answers. They’re just in a different level of accountability to your own words. So as much as you can push, I appreciate it.
Q: You challenged Thompson to nine debates across all nine counties. He agreed to a smaller slate, and at least one debate has already happened, in Marysville. Do you still want all nine, or is the current schedule good enough for you now?
Jones answered this question in writing.
Jones: I still want as many debates as possible, and I always will. More debates means more access, more accountability, and more direct conversation between candidates and the communities they hope to serve. I want voters to be able to hear directly from the people asking for their trust. I will make a promise here: in every future election I am a part of, I will always show up for public debates open to all candidates, not just the two backed by the major parties. That is what real democratic participation looks like, and I am committed to it.
Jones pressed for nine debates, one in each county. Thompson agreed to a League of Women Voters of Yolo County debate (July 13) and a Yuba City forum (Aug. 25), according to Thompson’s release (source 15). Thompson’s campaign says he did 11 debates and forums with Jones before the primary.
Q: Our Revolution’s endorsement of you disappeared from their site for a period around early August and has since reappeared. What actually happened there, and did anyone from that organization tell you why?
Jones: Our Revolution’s easy. That was a pure clerical error, and it’s back up, and I’m happy to connect you with anyone there. I think, if I’m going to be honest with you, what happened is when they had an auto scrub of the folks who didn’t make it out of the primary, because we had this three-week waiting period.
Jones answered this question in writing.
Jones: This was a web issue, plain and simple. Our Revolution never rescinded their endorsement. The disappearance from their site was a technical problem on their end, and they have since publicly reaffirmed their support and provided statements confirming it. There is no story here.
The endorsement page is live. It shows it was published Feb. 23, 2026 and last modified Aug. 10, 2026 (source 16). His campaign says it was never rescinded.
It sent no statement or email from Our Revolution when asked for one.
His explanations differ in wording. Live, he called it a clerical error tied to an automatic scrub of candidates who didn’t advance from the primary. In writing, he called it a web issue.
Q: The Press Democrat reported, and confirmed directly with the Republican candidate himself, that a Santa Monica couple spent roughly $110,000 funding three minor Republican candidates and a PAC attacking the leading Republican, Ray Riehle, in your primary. You beat Riehle by 1.5 points. Riehle told the paper he believes he’d have picked up most of those votes otherwise. Did you know about that spending at the time? And separately, Riehle turned around in August and endorsed you anyway. Why do you think he did that?
Jones answered this question in writing.
Jones: What I can tell you is what actually happened between Ray and me. During the primary, UC Davis students hosted a debate. Congressman Thompson did not show up. Ray did, and so did I. We disagreed on the vast majority of things, but he held himself with real integrity, and I learned from that exchange. We subsequently had a number of conversations, mostly around water, where Ray has genuine expertise. Those conversations shaped how I think about the infrastructure needs of this district. Ray asked me specifically to put a debt clock on our website and to always provide clear, honest explanations of how I plan to pay for my policy proposals. He and I are both deeply focused on the national debt, and I respect that. He endorsed me because he believes we will deliver on the things that matter most to him: water, infrastructure, fiscal responsibility, and protecting the future for the next generation. I am grateful for his support and I take the trust behind it seriously.
Riehle finished third in the primary (source 17). His campaign says his debt clock request was a verbal conversation after the June 2026 primary.
A May 18 debate at UC Davis was reported by Lake County News, which says the whole challenger slate signed on except Thompson. That fits Jones’s account.
Q: Two “network state” projects are already reshaping this exact region, California Forever’s 55,000-acre land grab in Solano County, and Esmeralda’s privatized village proposal in Cloverdale, both tied to the same Balaji Srinivasan ideology that treats democratic governance as an inconvenience to route around. You spent over a decade as a venture capitalist in exactly the world these projects come out of. What’s your actual position, not on housing generally, but on private capital buying up land specifically to build governance structures that bypass local democracy? And have you ever had any personal or professional contact with anyone behind either project?
Jones answered this question in writing.
Jones: I am unequivocally opposed to what California Forever has done in Solano County, and to any project that treats local democracy as an obstacle to route around. I am pro-housing. I believe deeply in building affordable, attainable, and workforce housing across this district and this state. But the way California Forever went about this was immoral, and it is not a model for how housing should be built in Northern California. Private companies should not be purchasing land at scale to construct governance structures that bypass the communities who live there. I have no personal or professional relationship with anyone behind either California Forever or Esmeralda. The source of capital does not make this acceptable, and democratic governance is the foundation everything else has to be built on.
KRON4 names the California Forever backers as Sramek, Hoffman, Andreessen and Powell Jobs (source 18). KRON4’s reporting does not connect them to Jones or Dragoneer.
Jones’s campaign sent written follow-up answers, and they are cited where they apply. Thompson was interviewed separately on Oct. 15, and that interview runs as a companion piece. The election is Nov. 3.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
