Steyer’s loss exposes billionaires’ real political threat

billionaires in – After Tom Steyer was knocked out of California’s governor’s race, backlash against his billionaire status surged online—yet the piece argues voters should direct anger toward how wealthy interests are shaping democracy, regulation, and even presidential wealth

When enough votes were counted to officially knock Tom Steyer out of the California governor’s race. some of the political world treated the result like a public victory—particularly for those who had framed Steyer as a billionaire trying to buy office. The reaction arrived fast. Social media posts and national headlines traded in the same message: “How dare he try to buy elected office!” One detractor complained about the money spent trying to influence Californians. asking how much was wasted “spamming Californians.”.

A New York Times headline also went after Steyer’s spending. arguing that the money would have been better used by donating directly to building houses or funding Planned Parenthood. The critique didn’t just target a campaign. It attacked the idea that wealthy-backed activism could be used to push for a better system.

The piece pushes back on that reflex. It acknowledges that Steyer spent $200 million on his campaign—more than many people make in a lifetime even after removing zeros from the number. But it argues the outrage risks turning into something sterile if it doesn’t map onto where power actually moves.

Steyer. the article notes. spent months advocating for universal healthcare. better pay and protections for workers. and placing curbs on out-of-control corporations from the energy sector to AI. At the same time. it says. other billionaires have spent that same period actively undermining democracy and the financial system. including by using money to shape regulation and electoral outcomes.

It gives concrete examples. The article points to Elon Musk and a SpaceX IPO last week. arguing that the rules of Wall Street—purportedly designed to protect small investors and pension plans—were set aside in ways that benefited Musk. It says that if someone holds a public pension or a 401(k) that uses index funds. they will likely be invested in Musk’s unproven and possibly risky business.

The piece then turns to right-wing AI and surveillance-company billionaires. describing them as pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into political races across the country. The goal. it says. is to ensure dangerous and unpredictable technologies are not regulated—or are regulated in ways the article frames as largely meaningless.

It also includes a warning from a wealthy insider published as an op-ed. The article says the insider cautioned that if those former colleagues are successful, “It could concentrate economic power in ways that would make the Gilded Age look quaint.”

Then comes the argument about the president. The piece describes Donald Trump as “king of self-enrichment. ” saying his wealth has more than $6 billion during his time in office. It says much of the money is in opaque cryptocurrency holdings that Trump has championed. with the fortune rising as those holdings have increased. It adds that Trump is enriching his family. too. pointing to Ivanka Trump and describing her recent “eat cake” headlines tied to an alleged $1.5-billion project to convert an uninhabited Albanian island into a luxury resort. It also says Albanians have been protesting in the streets for nearly two weeks.

The article claims Trump’s other family members—“his brothers”—have taken advantage of the president’s crypto ventures to make fortunes as other investors experienced losses.

From individuals, the piece widens to the system. It argues that billionaires can dump as much money as they want into politics thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizen’s United decision. It then shifts to California spending figures. In 2025. the oil and gas industry in California—led by Chevron and the Western States Petroleum Assn.—spent about $34 million on lobbying. The article says Golden State water and electricity interests. including PG&E. spent about $35 million to bend politics to their will.

With Steyer gone from the governor’s race. the piece returns to what it says was the point of his campaign fight. It quotes Steyer’s concession. where he said. “I’m proud of the enemies we made.” Steyer continued: “In this race. those corporations revealed that they see a government that puts working people first as an existential threat — even when proposed by a billionaire.” He also said that by spending $55 million—the most ever spent against a single candidate in a California primary—those corporations “showed the lengths they would go to in order to protect a status quo that only serves them and their profits.”.

The final thrust is less about who qualifies as “good” or “bad” and more about what people do with their anger. The article says the money is in politics whether voters like it or not. and it argues that many of those with it are intent on diminishing the political and economic power of those who don’t.

It describes a country drifting toward one where the well-being of the majority would depend on the largesse of the few. It says Silicon Valley now talks about universal basic income as a benefit for coming mass unemployment created by the tech industry. The piece asks whether it’s really what people want for themselves and their children—existence as charity “pittance. ” rather than power and rights.

It ends on a simple message: if Steyer wants to spend money to keep power “by the people and for the people. ” then “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The argument closes by insisting that in an era where “animus eats discernment. ” the luxury people can’t afford is hating the “good guys” simply because the easiest target is a billionaire.

Tom Steyer California governor's race billionaires in politics Citizen's United Elon Musk SpaceX IPO lobbying spending California 2025 Donald Trump wealth Ivanka Trump Albanian island resort universal healthcare PG&E Chevron