Steyer drops $192.4 million—California’s primary turns

Billionaire Tom Steyer has injected $192.4 million of his own money into his California governor campaign ahead of the June 2 primary—dwarfing what rivals have raised and reshaping the race through relentless advertising and a rapidly growing political operatio

When Tom Steyer’s campaign buys airtime across California, it doesn’t feel like a normal race. It feels like the election has moved into living rooms—during local newscasts, sitcoms, and even niche programming like the Puppy Bowl on Super Bowl Sunday.

As of Monday. the billionaire Democratic candidate for governor has donated a record-shattering $192.4 million of his personal wealth to his campaign ahead of the June 2 primary. His cash infusion has dwarfed the money raised by all his Democratic and Republican challengers combined. and it has helped keep him near the top of opinion polls—while triggering a backlash that refuses to soften.

The scale of the spending is hard to miss. His television ad buys have totaled nearly $59.5 million. with spending at all stations combined in some areas around San Francisco topping more than $22 million. He has also paid nearly $20.7 million to a media company focused on digital ad buys. Data used in the reporting was current as of May 18.

Steyer’s opponents argue the nonstop marketing is not just persuasion—it’s purchase.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter. speaking during an April debate. said Steyer is “a billionaire who got rich off polluters and ICE prisons and is now using that money to fund this election.” Her critique goes to motive: that a wealthy candidate benefits from controversial industries. and only later decides to campaign against them.

Steyer disputes that framing. He told reporters last month in Sacramento that he is the only candidate in the race being targeted by corporate special interests and that they are spending “tens of millions of dollars” to defeat him. He said the reason is simple: “I said I will only put the interest of working Californians first.” He added. “They’re worried that I mean it. and I do.”.

In an interview on Friday, Steyer also rejected claims that his campaign funds come from controversial investments. “That is such a bunch of bull, that’s where my money comes from,” he said. He argued his wealth comes from long-term investing over 27 years. not from “a couple of investments out of thousands that were there for a very short time” that he described as irrelevant to the money he has.

Californians have heard this kind of self-financing pitch before—and often with skepticism. Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist who managed Al Checchi’s unsuccessful 1998 governor bid that set a self-funding record, said voters have long questioned what drives the rich to run.

“Their basic reaction is. this person is incredibly successful. has made obscene amounts of money. could do anything they want to do in the world. Why would they want to run for office?. Why would they want to represent me?. What’s in it for them?” Sragow said. He continued. “And voters just go. ‘You’re just doing this for sport.’ … because they’re bored and they have big egos and they want something to do. That is the fundamental challenge for a self-funding candidate.”.

Steyer is trying to write his way out of that history.

He and his wife. Kat Taylor. have spent decades funding progressive causes. he said—work he portrays as different from earlier wealthy self-financing candidates. “I’m completely different from those people,” Steyer said. He added: “I’ve been working full time on behalf of Californians for 14 years, and I was involved before that. You know, those people … never did anything but the private sector.”.

He pointed to their efforts through ballot measures that took on the tobacco and oil industries. protected environmental laws. and taxed out-of-state corporations to fund schools. He also cited support for providing free breakfast and lunch for every California schoolchild. registering 1.2 million voters. and backing the state’s largest provider of services for immigrants.

“We didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. We didn’t just decide in our boardroom [that] we’re smarter than everybody else, they should listen to us.,” Steyer said. “We have been working within this system as private citizens for really a long time, and that’s the truth.”

Steyer’s defenders also point to his long-running involvement in climate-focused politics and other Democratic priorities. Sragow said Steyer could benefit from that sustained involvement. alongside the sheer reach of a campaign that keeps him near the top less than three weeks before the June 2 primary.

The race, however, is not settled.

Steyer’s Democratic rivals argue that his funding comes from a hedge fund legacy tied to fossil fuels and other industries they say liberal voters reject. They say his wealth gives him the ability to flood media markets and force his opponents to respond to a constant stream of messaging.

And while Steyer argues the spending is about results and urgency—not control—his campaign has to contend with the optics of power.

He has spent nearly $1 billion on his political pursuits. In addition to the $192.4 million spent to date on his gubernatorial bid. he has spent nearly $342 million on his unsuccessful 2020 presidential bid. $325 million on national Democratic candidates and causes. $67.4 million on state efforts. and nearly $13.5 million backing a successful California gerrymandering ballot measure last year. The accounting comes from state and federal fundraising disclosures and Open Secrets, a nonpartisan group that tracks electoral finances.

Steyer declined to say how much he plans to spend on his bid.

For voters watching the ads—across expensive media markets in a state with major television reach—this campaign has arrived as a constant interruption. Mailers tout his environmental record. his work taking on corporations and President Trump. and promises to build 1 million new affordable homes in four years. cut electric bills by 25%. and enact single-payer healthcare.

The political question now is whether the money can overcome doubts about a candidate’s roots.

Recently, Steyer placed second in Real Clear Politics’ average of recent polls and is now third behind Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra, a longtime elected official who most recently served as President Biden’s Health and Human Services secretary.

On the Democratic side, Steyer’s campaign has launched a blistering attack ad campaign against Becerra, once mired in the single digits and later surged in the polls after former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race in April following accusations of sexual misconduct and assault.

Steyer’s ads accuse Becerra of being inconsistent about single-payer healthcare and about what he knew about a federal corruption scandal that ensnared a former top campaign strategist for stealing funds from a dormant Becerra campaign account.

A mailer Steyer recently sent voters castigates Becerra for taking campaign contributions from oil. tobacco and utility companies. and for his handling of unaccompanied migrant children when he was HHS secretary. The mailer says: “Xavier Becerra was supposed to keep immigrant kids safe. but thousands were lost. trafficked. or exploited.” It adds: “Becerra failed to protect children and they paid the price. What price will California pay when he fails us?”.

Steyer and Becerra have also traded direct blows through social media. On April 27 on the platform X, Steyer called on Becerra to return a $39,200 contribution from Chevron. Becerra responded with an ad that highlights California’s natural beauty—from the coastline to the desert to the redwoods—as a break from Steyer’s advertising. “Take a break from all those Tom Steyer ads. Enjoy,” reads the introduction to the ad.

Underneath the campaign messaging lies a longer record of wealthy candidates and uneven results.

In the 2010 governor’s race. Meg Whitman spent $144 million of her wealth on an unsuccessful campaign. a record for statewide campaign spending in the nation at the time until Democrat J.B. Pritzker broke it in 2018 by donating roughly $171.5 million of his fortune to his successful bid to be elected governor of Illinois. Adjusted for inflation, Whitman’s spending would be nearly $220 million today.

But Whitman spent her money in a lengthy primary and general election, while Steyer is still weeks away from the June 2 primary and will almost certainly contribute more money before then—and potentially before a November election if he advances. Steyer has never been elected to public office.

Political experts say the sheer magnitude of Steyer’s spending could be decisive even in a state where rich candidates have repeatedly struggled.

Dan Schnur. a longtime politics professor at USC. UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University. said Steyer is outspending opponents by far more than any other self-funded candidate in California. “It’s not a question of his message but rather the magnitude of his spending.” Schnur added that the unsettled nature of the race reflects Democratic voters’ “built-in” resistance to supporting a billionaire who became wealthy because of investments that contradict their morals.

A veteran GOP strategist who advised Whitman in 2010. Rob Stutzman. said he did not think voters’ primary concern would be Steyer’s self-funding. but the money could make a difference. “It’s not just that Steyer has self-funded to this amazing number,” Stutzman said. “There’s really nobody [else] that’s even spending enough money, arguably, to be successful.”.

Steyer’s wealth is estimated at $2.4 billion by Forbes.

In 1986, he founded Farallon Capital, once one of the largest hedge funds in the world. He sold his stake in it in 2012, saying he didn’t want to be associated with investments that did not align with his values.

“There’s a reason I walked away from that business and walked away from a ton of money, because I felt like that is not the life I want,” Steyer told San Francisco voters in March.

Even with that explanation, his Democratic rivals see opportunity in his regret. They argue it gives him cover while he uses Farallon’s largess to underwrite both his record and his aggressive effort to slash at competitors.

Steyer’s 2020 campaign also fed the skepticism. His outsized spending drew criticism. including accusations that he tried to use his money to win endorsements in Iowa and South Carolina during his 2020 presidential bid. He has also faced recent scrutiny over social media influencers touting his gubernatorial candidacy without disclosing that Steyer was paying them.

The current fight is also shaped by the way Steyer has navigated attention before. In last year’s state campaign about redrawing California’s congressional districts to counter Trump’s efforts in GOP-led states. Steyer spent significantly in support of the effort led by Gov. Gavin Newsom. But he did not donate to the official campaign backing Proposition 50. Instead. he spent his money featuring himself in ads that were widely viewed as a way to raise visibility among voters before a gubernatorial bid.

In 2019, Steyer spent $8.5 million airing nearly 19,000 ads calling for Trump’s impeachment, according to the Wesleyan Media Project. That was on top of several million dollars spent on ads that featured himself. which led Trump to call him “unhinged” and a “wacko” in 2017. When asked by The Times whether his support for Trump’s impeachment was laying the groundwork for a future political bid. Steyer demurred. “One of the things that is now true in American politics — it is reflected in that question — is there is no sense that people might try and do something for its own purpose. ” he said. “Throughout American history, people have chosen to do the right thing ’cause they felt like it was important.”.

A year and a half later, Steyer launched his presidential campaign. Facing similar questions about the source of his wealth and poor showings in early Democratic primaries, he dropped out in February of 2020.

Still, money alone may not be enough in California, where past self-funders have repeatedly failed to convert spending into office.

Steyer’s supporters say he’s different. His opponents say he’s the same kind of billionaire—only with a louder megaphone.

And with the June 2 primary approaching, the race is no longer just about who can govern. It’s about who can define the story before voters decide what they can afford to believe.

Tom Steyer California governor race June 2 primary self-funded campaign political advertising Xavier Becerra Katie Porter Steve Hilton single-payer healthcare climate policy