Silicon Valley money reshapes California Legislature as moderate Democrats head to Sacramento
Back in April, Ada Briceño felt good about her chances of finishing in the top two in the Assembly District 67 primary, a seat covering parts of Orange and Los Angeles counties. The labor leader and former hotel worker had the backing of the California Democratic Party, the Working Families Party and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Internal polling showed her with a comfortable lead over her closest Democratic rival, Cerritos City Councilmember Mark Pulido.
Then the spending began.
Between April 9 and the June 2 primary, outside groups poured $9.2 million into attacking Briceño and boosting Pulido. Most of that money came from Airbnb, Meta, Google and cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen. Pulido’s own campaign added another $600,000. Two regional card rooms spent $500,000 defending Briceño, but it wasn’t nearly enough to keep pace.
“He got through the primary because of the $10 million spent against me. No question,” Briceño said of Pulido. His campaign did not respond to a direct message on social media or an email seeking comment.
Pulido is one of at least nine corporate-backed Democrats headed to the state Capitol after Silicon Valley companies and investors spent at least $50 million on legislative races this cycle, much of it aimed at helping moderate candidates defeat more progressive, labor-aligned opponents. While a national blue wave swept several Republican state lawmakers out of office this fall, that same backlash against billionaire spending largely failed to materialize in California’s legislative contests — despite efforts by candidates and critics to make it a campaign issue.
Tech money delivers results
Grow California, a newly formed independent expenditure committee funded primarily by Larsen and venture capitalist Tim Draper, spent $24 million this cycle. California Leads, bankrolled mostly by Meta and Google, spent another $17 million. Both groups focused their firepower on helping moderate Democrats fend off challenges from the left. Together, they accounted for roughly 30% of all independent spending in legislative races during what turned out to be a record-breaking year for political spending in California.
“We’re proud to see so many Leads-backed candidates join the California Legislature next year, and we won’t let up heading into 2028,” said Nathan Click, a strategist for California Leads, in an emailed statement. Click declined an interview request and would not comment on the losses suffered by several Republicans the group had supported, including incumbent state Sen. Tony Strickland, Assemblymember Greg Wallis and San Diego-area Senate candidate Ed Musgrove.
Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California, a Meta-funded super PAC created explicitly to support candidates friendly to the tech industry, spent $2.6 million across five Democratic legislative campaigns. That list includes three newly elected lawmakers: Assemblymembers-elect Andrae Gonzales and Annalisa Perea, and Senator-elect Scott Sakakihara, a former Palantir Technologies executive who received the bulk of that spending.
While the Meta-backed PAC has been upfront about wanting lawmakers friendly to “AI innovation,” both California Leads and Grow California insist they aren’t pushing any single policy agenda.
“We’re trying to make ideologues on both sides a minority,” said Shaudi Fulp, a political strategist for Grow California. “Our main goal is making sure lawmakers aren’t just a rubber stamp for any one interest — whether that’s tech, public-sector labor or business.”
Grow California also spent heavily in Los Angeles County’s Senate District 26, a seat left open by the retirement of progressive Democratic Sen. Maria Elena Durazo. The group put $4.6 million behind Democrat Sara Hernández, an attorney who holds more moderate views on health care and development than her Democratic opponent, Sarah Rascón.
Durazo endorsed Rascón, while Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas backed Hernández.
Like Briceño, Rascón found her campaign overwhelmed by outside spending favoring her opponent. Independent committees backed by the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters spent $450,000 in her favor — a fraction of the $9 million that flowed to Hernández’s side.
“It was David versus Goliath,” Rascón said. “My Goliath was these outside corporate tech interests.”
The environmental advocate said part of what drove her to run was watching Durazo stand up to corporate interests in the Legislature, something she felt was increasingly rare. She pointed to Senate Bill 716, authored by Durazo, which raised the maximum fines local governments could impose on property owners who violate health and safety codes at non-residential buildings. Durazo introduced the bill after a weeklong warehouse fire in June sickened hundreds of residents in Los Angeles’ working-class Boyle Heights neighborhood. A coalition of business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, opposed the bill’s scope, arguing it could impose steep costs on property owners.
“It really is a shame to lose this seat in a progressive district that was one of the last working-class strongholds,” Rascón said.
Hernández did not respond to a direct message or an email request for comment, but in September she posted a video on Instagram explaining how outside spending works and saying she was proud her campaign refused contributions from cryptocurrency firms, Big Tech and artificial intelligence companies, among others.
“If it doesn’t come from me, I don’t approve it. Don’t tie me to outside money,” she wrote in the post’s caption.
The new normal
For some watchdogs, the specter of heavy tech spending has loomed over California politics for more than a year.
“When they announced last year that they were going to spend this kind of money at the state level, it alarmed us tremendously,” said Catherine Bracy, executive director of TechEquity Collaborative, a Bay Area nonprofit that advocates for tech industry regulation. She said the spending reflects Silicon Valley’s growing grip on California lawmaking.
This fall, TechEquity Action, the nonprofit’s political advocacy arm, launched a statewide $1 million ad campaign directing voters to thetruthabouttechmoney.com, a website detailing where tech dollars were flowing across the state.
“We’ve seen what happens when, say, Elon Musk spends $450 million on national elections. People don’t like it,” Bracy said, referencing Tuesday’s election results.
Still, she acknowledged real differences among the various tech-backed players.
Larsen, for instance, told KQED in October that he wants the state to “stop building new data centers” until stronger artificial intelligence regulations are in place.
Yet his group, Grow California, spent millions opposing Jackie Elward, a progressive candidate for Assembly District 12 covering Marin and Sonoma counties, who said she supports moratoriums on “anything related to AI.” That district was one of two where the Grow California-backed candidate, Eric Lucan, trailed in the vote count.
David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University, said the spending in that race may have backfired. Early, uncoordinated spending from Grow California and committees backed by real estate and insurance interests actually boosted Elward’s name recognition, while voter resentment toward tech money stuck to Lucan — even though he had rejected such contributions himself.
McCuan argued that all of this statewide spending reflects a broader strategy by Big Tech to get ahead of growing public skepticism toward data centers and artificial intelligence. He expects the spending to grow and become more coordinated in future election cycles.
“Big Tech is trying to get out in front of what should be a tough regulatory environment,” he said.
As for whether the tech industry’s deep pockets will translate into influence over how newly elected lawmakers actually vote, Shaun Bowler, a political science professor at UC Riverside, said money will matter — but it won’t be the only factor.
“Legislators don’t just need money, they also need to do things that support or benefit the district,” he said. “A billionaire isn’t the same thing as 100,000 votes.”
Original source: CalMatters
