Billionaire Tom Steyer has invested more than $115 million into advertising for California's gubernatorial race, blanketing television and mobile screens across the state ahead of the June 2 primary election. This extraordinary spending, nearly 30 times that of his closest Democratic competitor, raises fundamental questions about the role of personal wealth in shaping electoral outcomes, according to veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick. Voters will begin receiving mail-in ballots next month, setting the stage for a critical phase of the campaign.

The sheer scale of Tom Steyer’s financial commitment to his California gubernatorial campaign stands out, even in a state accustomed to high-dollar politics. Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact reveals Steyer has spent or reserved more than $115 million on broadcast television, cable, and radio advertisements. This figure dwarfs the combined expenditures of all his major competitors, including independent committees backing other candidates, by tens of millions of dollars.

His ads, frequently seen in the dense Los Angeles media market, often promise to reduce household expenses or criticize federal immigration enforcement actions. These messages resonate with many families. Steyer's financial strategy could soon surpass a significant historical benchmark.

If he advances past the June 2 primary, his campaign is poised to exceed the $178.5 million spent by Republican Meg Whitman in her unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial bid. Much of Whitman's spending came from her own personal fortune. At the time, that campaign represented the most expensive statewide office contest in American history.

Steyer, a former hedge fund manager turned environmental advocate, is leveraging his considerable wealth to capture voter attention in a race that has lacked a dominant frontrunner. His rivals have not hesitated to voice their disapproval of this spending. Former U.S.

Representative Katie Porter, a leading Democratic contender, directly addressed her supporters this month. “Billionaire money is flooding our state in an attempt to buy this election,” Porter asserted. This sentiment echoes a broader concern among working families: does a candidate's personal bank account offer an unfair advantage over grassroots organizing and policy ideas? Many voters feel disconnected from a process where financial power seems to dictate visibility.

Despite the massive influx of advertising, Steyer has yet to break away from the field in polling. While his numbers have shown a modest increase, he has not established a commanding lead. This lack of a decisive surge has led to skepticism about the effectiveness of his spending.

Bill Carrick, a veteran Democratic strategist who advised the late U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein for years, offered a pointed assessment. “If your first round of ads doesn’t move you dramatically,” Carrick stated, “the third, fourth, fifth, six, seventh and eighth rounds won’t either.” He added that “There is something inherently holding Steyer back.” This suggests a ceiling on what money alone can achieve. The campaign appears stuck.

Carrick further described the gubernatorial contest as “frozen,” noting that in previous election cycles, a leading candidate typically consolidated support at this stage. This year, however, California voters appear largely unenthused by a crowded field that includes seven prominent Democrats and two Republicans. The absence of a widely recognized political figure has kept the race diffuse.

Voters are not engaging in the way campaigns might hope. History offers several cautionary tales for candidates who rely heavily on personal fortunes. In 2022, billionaire developer Rick Caruso spent over $100 million of his own money in his campaign for Los Angeles mayor.

He was ultimately defeated by Karen Bass, who operated on a significantly smaller budget. Nationally, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg invested more than $1 billion of his personal wealth into his 2020 presidential campaign. He withdrew from the race after failing to gain traction.

Steyer himself experienced this dynamic during his own 2020 presidential bid, dropping out early after a poor showing in the South Carolina primary, despite substantial spending. The policy says one thing about access to office; the reality says another about voter choice. Steyer, who has never held elected office, has faced similar criticisms about using his wealth to seek power before.

In a 2019 interview with The Associated Press, when asked about perceptions that he was trying to buy the presidency, Steyer responded, “I don’t think that’s possible.” He then added, “I’m never going to apologize for succeeding in business. That’s America, right?” His campaign did not directly address similar critiques regarding his current gubernatorial run. Instead, campaign spokesperson Kevin Liao issued a statement. “Tom now stands as the only Democrat with the grassroots energy, institutional backing and resources to advance to the general election,” Liao claimed.

Both sides claim victory in their approach. Here are the numbers: the spending is high, the polling is flat. The California governor’s race has seen two recent shifts that have reshaped the contest.

Representative Eric Swalwell, previously a leading contender, abruptly withdrew from the race and then resigned from Congress following accusations of sexual assault, which he denies. Separately, President Donald Trump endorsed conservative commentator Steve Hilton, further energizing the Republican side of the primary. These developments have not, however, produced a clear frontrunner.

Polling conducted in late March and early April by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California indicated a tight competition among several candidates. Democrats Steyer and Porter, along with Republicans Hilton and Chad Bianco, were closely clustered. Swalwell was also included in this polling, which took place before his withdrawal.

Other candidates trailed this leading group. The uncertainty has created strategic dilemmas for all campaigns. Democrats have voiced concern that the large number of candidates from their party could inadvertently lead to them being excluded from the general election in November.

California’s primary system dictates that only the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election. A fragmented Democratic vote could allow two Republicans to move forward. This scenario is a real worry for party strategists.

This is what this actually means for your family: if two Republicans advance, voters will face a limited choice in the general election, potentially impacting policies on housing, education, and healthcare for years to come. Since Swalwell’s departure, various leading Democrats have claimed to have absorbed his support. Steyer secured a notable endorsement when the influential California Teachers Association, which had previously backed Swalwell, recommended him.

This endorsement provides institutional backing. Teachers and their families represent a significant voting bloc. Steyer’s advertisements often focus on issues that resonate with working families.

He pledges to “abolish” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency that has conducted raids across California and caused worry in many communities. In another ad, he addresses the state’s high cost of housing, stating, “Everybody needs an affordable place to live.” These promises speak directly to the daily struggles many Californians face, from fears of family separation to the crushing burden of rent.

The implications of Steyer’s campaign extend beyond California’s borders. The dynamic of a self-funded billionaire attempting to win a major statewide office is closely watched nationally, particularly as debates about campaign finance and the influence of wealth in democracy continue. What this actually means for your family is that this race tests whether a candidate can truly buy an election, or if genuine voter connection remains the ultimate currency.

The outcome will offer lessons on how political messaging, even with immense financial backing, translates into real votes. It will also provide insight into voter priorities in a state facing complex challenges in housing, immigration, and economic equity. - Tom Steyer has spent over $115 million on advertising for the California governor’s race, significantly outspending all rivals. - Despite this massive investment, Steyer has not achieved a clear lead in polling, prompting questions about the efficacy of his spending. - Critics, including rival Katie Porter, argue Steyer is attempting to “buy” the election, while historical examples show money does not guarantee victory. - The crowded Democratic field and California's top-two primary system raise concerns about the party potentially being locked out of the general election. As mail-in ballots begin reaching voters next month, the true test of Steyer's strategy will unfold.

The June 2 primary election will reveal whether his unprecedented spending can translate into a spot in the general election, or if California voters will prioritize other factors. Political observers will be watching closely to see if the race remains “frozen” or if any candidate, with or without a billion-dollar war chest, can finally capture the electorate's imagination.

Key Takeaways
— - Tom Steyer has spent over $115 million on advertising for the California governor’s race, significantly outspending all rivals.
— - Despite this massive investment, Steyer has not achieved a clear lead in polling, prompting questions about the efficacy of his spending.
— - Critics, including rival Katie Porter, argue Steyer is attempting to “buy” the election, while historical examples show money does not guarantee victory.
— - The crowded Democratic field and California's top-two primary system raise concerns about the party potentially being locked out of the general election.

Source: AP News

Reporting by Carmen Ruiz, Horizon Reports — April 19, 2026