Ambition Without Audience: Erickson’s Senate Bid Gets the Cold Shoulder

When West Hollywood City Councilmember and Immediate Past Mayor John Erickson launched his California State Senate campaign just weeks after being sworn in for a four-year term, expectations were that he would emerge as the frontrunner. Now the numbers are out: $160,041 raised, landing him firmly in sixth place in the wide open primary.

For someone representing one of California’s high-profile cities, this is a striking political failure.

Why the Numbers Matter

Campaign fundraising isn’t just about money, it’s the clearest measure of political viability in a competitive race. Here’s how the Senate District 24 field stands as of June 30, 2025:

• Brian Goldsmith: $1,068,676
• Sion Roy: $782,046
• Michael Newhouse: $271,357
• Nico Ruderman: $244,828
• Ellen Evans: $235,709
• John Erickson: $160,041
• Eric Alegria: $113,606
• Kristina Irwin (R): $35,103
• Brittany McKinley: Not reported

Erickson isn’t just behind, he’s miles behind.

Local Reputation: No Real Base to Build On

Despite the title “West Hollywood Mayor” and with backing from DSA superstar Supervisor Horvath, Erickson has struggled to translate that into genuine political capital:

• Ethics Concerns: Critics have long accused him of using feminist advocacy groups like Hollywood NOW to advance his own political career, leading to frustration inside activist circles.
• Underwhelming Tenure: His campaign touts a $30 million city surplus and “investments in housing and public safety,” but many residents see his record as more self-promotional than results-oriented.
• Public Perception: Editorials and constituent complaints frequently paint him as disconnected from the city’s real challenges.

For voters in the wider district, that lack of local enthusiasm is a red flag. If you can’t rally your own base, you can’t expect to win over an entire Senate district.

Fundraising is a blunt but reliable indicator: if people who know your work best don’t invest in you, it’s because they don’t believe you can win, or should win. Erickson’s numbers show a lack of confidence from both grassroots donors and major contributors.

The absence of major endorsements further underscores the problem: he’s not consolidating support, he’s splitting it.

Why Stay In?

There’s no realistic path to victory from this position. The district stretches from Venice to Malibu, demanding significant resources, organization, and coalition-building—none of which Erickson has demonstrated.

If he continues, the likely outcome is a double defeat: losing the Senate race while further eroding what little political credibility he retains in West Hollywood.

Sixth place. Weak fundraising. No momentum.

For a candidate from one of California’s most recognizable cities, this is a rejection from voters, donors, and the political class. The path forward is obvious: withdraw now before the campaign becomes an even bigger embarrassment.

West Hollywood doesn’t need a distracted councilmember chasing a doomed bid for higher office, it needs leaders who can deliver on their promises, not abandon them weeks into a new term. Clearly, Erickson is incapable of delivering.