Throughout California’s U.S. Senate primary — and particularly after it became apparent she had lost — Rep. Katie Porter has been vocal in her criticism of how much money special interest groups and wealthy donors were spending against her.

But it was one three-letter word amid a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter) Wednesday afternoon that raised eyebrows.

Thanking supporters, she said: “Because of you, we had the establishment running scared — withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending money to rig this election.”

See the latest election results.

Using the word “rig” to describe an election loss invited an onslaught of criticism — especially since that has been the mantra of former President Donald Trump after his 2020 election loss.

But Porter doubled down on the term in a late-night statement posted to social media. She clarified that she has not “undermined the vote count and election process in (California), which are above reproach” but is instead calling out the use of what’s called dark money — funds spent on elections by groups like nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors — in the Senate race.

“‘Rigged’ means manipulated by dishonest means. A few billionaires spent $10+ million on attack ads against me, including an ad rated ‘false’ by an independent fact checker,” Porter said. “That is dishonest means to manipulate an outcome.”

“I said ‘rigged billionaires’ and our politics are — in fact — manipulated by big dark money,” she continued.

Using the term “rigged” is “irresponsible,” Rick Hasen, a UCLA Law professor and election law expert, said in his Election Law Blog.

Hasen, who is a former Porter colleague at UC Irvine, said he understood the context of her message and shared her criticism of undisclosed outsized money being spent on campaigns. However, better language could have been used, he said, to convey that.

“These comments will be taken out of context to claim that Katie is as bad as Trump in saying that the election system is unfair,” said Hasen. “This will cause more people to doubt the integrity of the election process.”

An analysis of independent super PAC spending of more than $16 million leading up to election day found that the largest share of that spending went toward opposing Steve Garvey, a Republican former Dodger player who jumped into the race fairly late. (Super PACs are political action committees that can take unlimited contributions from wealthy donors.)

Porter has criticized the ads, and the campaign for fellow Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, for attempting to uplift Garvey through the primary so he could have an easier time in the general election. Schiff’s camp, meanwhile, has said Porter attempted to do the same by highlighting Republican Eric Early in ads.

But the second-largest amount of independent spending, the analysis found, was from Fairshake, a cryptocurrency PAC, that funded an aid claiming Porter — known for refusing to accept money from corporate PACs — took in more than $100,000 from “Big Pharma, Big Oil and the Big Bank executives.” The Sacramento Bee rated the ad as “mostly false.”