Wealthy self-funders lose ground in California primaries

self-funders lose – Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer spent more than $215 million of his own money in California’s governor primary and came up short against Steve Hilton. In the 11th congressional district House primary, Saikat Chakrabarti, another self-funder, also

Tom Steyer’s gamble was supposed to do something voters could feel — speed up recognition, flood the airwaves, and lock in a progressive message before ballots were cast. Instead, in California’s governor’s race, his self-funded push ended with him stuck in third.

On Tuesday. The Associated Press projected that conservative commentator Steve Hilton would edge out Steyer and advance in the gubernatorial contest. The latest results. as of Thursday. put former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra at 28% of the vote. Hilton at 24.9%. and Steyer trailing in third at 22.6%.

Steyer’s campaign didn’t run on borrowed hope. All told, he spent over $215 million of his own fortune for the California governor’s seat — including $209 million on television ads. His messaging leaned progressive, with some of those ads focusing on breaking up utilities in the state.

In the 11th congressional district House primary, the story was different in details but similar in outcome. Saikat Chakrabarti — a former chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — poured nearly $10 million of his own funds into his race. ran a progressive platform. and came in third. The latest results as of Thursday had State Sen. Scott Wiener at 40.8%, San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan at 29.7%, and Chakrabarti at 17.8%.

Chakrabarti’s campaign tried to outwork the skepticism that can follow a candidate who pays their own way. His outreach employed over 250 paid canvassers who went door-to-door to engage local residents, and his strategy also targeted confrontation with the Democratic Party.

Political science professor Jason McDaniel at San Francisco State University said money can help in visible ways — but not in ways that always decide a primary.

“Campaign spending is ads, it’s staff, it’s precinct walkers, it’s all organizational stuff, data, all that,” McDaniel told HuffPost.

McDaniel’s central point was blunt: spending can build logistics and name recognition, but it doesn’t automatically erase doubts or fix how voters size up a candidate.

“The money could not substitute for… voters’ experience with you, previous favorable ratings, trusting,” McDaniel said.

Steyer and Chakrabarti both faced opponents who leaned hard on credentials, local ties, and endorsements — and, crucially, on the contrast between running from government experience and running toward it.

In the governor’s race, Becerra — Steyer’s chief Democratic opponent — touted his track record as California’s former attorney general, former House lawmaker, and former Cabinet official. That experience, his supporters said, mattered.

In the House primary, Wiener and Chan cited endorsements from local constituencies, including Democratic officials and labor groups. Chan’s effort received a last-minute boost when she secured the backing of House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the incumbent in the seat.

Steyer and Chakrabarti had not previously held public office. Both cast themselves as candidates eager to take on the status quo. That pitch found resonance with some voters who wanted change. But the same message also risked alienating people who cared more about qualifications and proof.

Their self-funding opened another vulnerability: it turned campaign dollars into campaign politics. Some voters were wary of backing a billionaire or centimillionaire.

In both races, their opponents accused them of attempting to buy their elections. Steyer also drew criticism for past investments in industries that clashed with the progressive platform he later embraced, including fossil fuels and private prisons.

Steyer has since said those investments “clearly didn’t align with my values” and that his former firm had divested from its stake in the private prison company. His campaign also said the hedge fund had screened out fossil-fuel-related holdings from Steyer’s portfolio.

Both candidates argued that the support their opponents received from corporate interests was part of the same problem. Steyer said he wasn’t “conflicted by taking money from corporations.” Chakrabarti said his approach was an alternative to relying on big donors and owing them favors.

They also tied their wealth-backed bids to a class-forward critique. They described themselves as “class traitors” who favored policies like taxing the rich.

McDaniel said the presumption hanging over self-funders was difficult to overcome.

“I think the money that they spent, they had a hard time overcoming that presumption of self-funder, you know, in a time when a lot of people in the Democratic Party are just skeptical of very rich people,” he said.

Money, McDaniel added, isn’t a universal solvent. It can work — but sometimes only if the political matchup and the moment cooperate.

“If the candidates [Steyer] faced were different, if it was a different year, maybe that money is enough,” McDaniel said.

He pointed to a comparison in San Francisco politics. Previously, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie spent heavily to self-fund his 2024 campaign as an outsider candidate. McDaniel said Lurie’s bid was helped by voters’ openness to an anti-incumbent message for city leadership at the time. and by one of his opponents’ campaigns struggling in the run-up to the election.

At least one other California contest involving a self-funding candidate this cycle has yet to be called. Eric Jones, a former venture capitalist who invested nearly $5 million in a progressive challenge of incumbent Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.). is one of two candidates vying for the second-place spot in a primary for California’s 4th congressional district.

California primaries Tom Steyer Steve Hilton Xavier Becerra Saikat Chakrabarti Scott Wiener Connie Chan Nancy Pelosi self-funding campaigns campaign spending