Tom Steyer has time and money to burn.
Photo: Laure Andrillon/AP Photo
Hating on billionaires is a very popular thing in California progressive politics right now. Golden State tech bros played a large role in Donald Trump’s return to power, and many are helping bankroll the Republican Party’s effort to maintain control in Washington this fall. Not coincidentally, some of the same people are deeply involved in an AI revolution that, depending on who you believe, may soon result in mass unemployment at a scale not seen since the 1930s, if not in the redundancy of the human race. In November, Californians may have the opportunity to vote for a one-time “billionaire tax.” Progressives nationwide are excited about the possibility of America’s largest state imposing the kind of wealth tax they’ve dreamed of for years.
So it’s more than a little interesting that some of those same progressives are hoping to lift a hedge-fund billionaire to the governorship of California. Just this week, Bernie Sanders’s Our Revolution organization endorsed Tom Steyer to succeed Gavin Newsom in Sacramento. Steyer has also recently picked up endorsements from the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Nurses Association. His platform has a lot to do with left-bent support: He is favorably inclined toward wealth taxes (unlike Newsom, who is opposing the current ballot initiative); he supports a state single-payer health-care system; and at a time when environmentalists are on the defensive everywhere, he’s positioned himself as an unrepentant climate-change activist (his calling card as a donor and candidate prior to the gubernatorial run).
But the even more obvious appeal of Steyer to progressives is his willingness to spend lavishly from the fortune (estimated at around $2.4 billion) he built in the early part of the 21st century, largely by investing in dubious profitable assets like private prisons and fossil fuels. After stepping down from his hedge-fund enterprise in 2012, he has been a generous advocate for progressive causes like climate-change activism, has made major political donations, and was briefly a presidential candidate himself. Much like the Californian to whom he is sometimes compared, William Randolph Hearst, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 1904, Steyer campaigned in 2020 as the poor man’s rich man. After gaining national attention for financing a grassroots effort to support the impeachment of Trump, Steyer tossed huge money into the pivotal South Carolina Democratic presidential primary, the contest that represented Joe Biden’s breakthrough that year. Steyer finished a relatively poor third to Biden and to his now-friend Bernie Sanders.
Steyer’s well-funded presidential bid was just a preview of how heavily he’s spending now to become governor of California, as the Associated Press recently reported:
Steyer’s ads — in which he promises to bring down household costs or rails against federal immigration raids — appear inescapable at times in heavily Democratic Los Angeles, the state’s largest media market.
Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.
If he makes it through the June 2 primary election, Steyer could easily eclipse the 2010 record set by Republican Meg Whitman, who spent $178.5 million in a losing bid for governor, much of it her own money. At the time, it was the costliest campaign for statewide office in the nation’s history.
Ideology aside, Steyer’s willingness to go large in campaign spending makes him attractive to progressives who fear the diffuse Democratic gubernatorial field will lead to a Republican “lockout” under California’s election system, whereby the first- and second-place finishers in the June 2 nonpartisan primary get ticket to the general election regardless of party. Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco have been running first and second in some polls, particularly since initial front-runner Eric Swalwell’s campaign imploded owing to allegations of criminal sexual misconduct. In the wake of this astonishing event, many “centrist” voters have gravitated to former attorney general Xavier Becerra, and progressive backers of Katie Porter have gained fresh hope that her lagging campaign will regain momentum. Lurking in the wings has been the candidate many progressives loathe, San Jose mayor Matt Mahan, who is pursuing a late surge with heavy funding from Silicon Valley. To put it simply, Steyer is the one candidate with the resources to snuff out both the GOP and tech-bro threats, and he has been willing to toe the lefty line on most key issues.
Photo: @TomSteyer/X
One promise he’s making that is particularly powerful with progressives is his pledge to very quickly revive a failed 2020 bid to deny commercial real estate the protections of California’s legendary Prop 13 caps on property-tax increases, a step that could raise vast revenues. But that position has attracted intense enmity of the state’s powerful real-estate lobby. In conjunction with the PG&E utility company, which is furious at Steyer for his attacks on its rate-setting practices and profits, the Realtors have helped bankroll intensely abrasive ads reminding Democratic voters of the unsavory nature of the hedge-fund investments that made Steyer rich enough to try to spend his way into the governor’s office.
So in important respects, Steyer’s billionaire status has become a central issue in this high-stakes gubernatorial race. Is he the “billionaire willing to tax billionaires,” as he constantly claims, even describing himself as a “class traitor” to the very wealthy? Is he part of the problem, or part of the solution, or both? How progressive voters answer that question may be the key to what happens when they begin receiving their mail ballots in early May.
