This November, California voters sent a clear message by rejecting several Republican incumbents and tilting further toward Democratic control of the statehouse. But in a twist that surprised many political observers, the deep-pocketed influence of Silicon Valley’s tech industry on legislative races went largely unchallenged — even as polls continue to show widespread public distrust of artificial intelligence companies and billionaire political spending.
Back in April, Ada Briceño believed she had the race for Assembly District 67 — which covers portions of Orange and Los Angeles counties — well in hand. The labor organizer and former hotel worker carried endorsements from the California Democratic Party, the Working Families Party and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Internal polling put her comfortably ahead of her main Democratic rival, Cerritos City Councilmember Mark Pulido.
Then the spending began.
In the roughly two months leading up to the June 2 primary, outside groups poured $9.2 million into the race — much of it aimed at tearing down Briceño while elevating Pulido. The bulk of that money came from Airbnb, Meta, Google and cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen. Pulido’s own campaign added another $600,000. Briceño had backing too — two regional cardrooms spent roughly $500,000 on her behalf — but it wasn’t nearly enough to offset the financial tidal wave against her.
“He made it past the primary because of the $10 million that was spent against me. Absolutely,” Briceño said of Pulido, whose campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
Pulido is one of at least nine business-aligned Democrats heading to Sacramento this year after tech companies and investors funneled more than $50 million into legislative races statewide, often to help moderate candidates defeat more progressive, labor-backed challengers. While the broader political mood this cycle swept several Republican incumbents out of office, that same anti-establishment energy didn’t carry over to unseat tech-backed candidates in California’s Legislature — despite efforts by critics to draw attention to the spending.
Tech money reshapes key races
Two newly formed independent expenditure committees did much of the heavy lifting. Grow California, primarily bankrolled by Larsen and venture capitalist Tim Draper, spent $24 million, while California Leads, funded largely by Meta and Google, spent $17 million — both working to boost moderate Democrats over their more left-leaning counterparts. Combined, the two groups accounted for nearly a third of all independent spending on legislative races this cycle, which set records for political spending overall.
“We are proud to see so many Leads-backed candidates joining the California Legislature next year, and we aren’t taking our foot off the gas for 2028,” said Nathan Click, a strategist for California Leads, in a written statement. Click declined an interview request and did not address the losses of several Republicans the group had supported, including incumbent state Sen. Tony Strickland, Assemblymember Greg Wallis and San Diego-area Senate candidate Ed Musgrove.
Meanwhile, a Meta-funded super PAC known as Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across (Meta) California — created specifically to support candidates friendly to the tech industry — spent $2.6 million across five legislative campaigns. Three of its favored candidates won seats: Assemblymembers-elect Andrae Gonzalez and Annalisa Perea, and Sen.-elect Scott Sakakihara, a former Palantir Technologies executive who received the lion’s share of that committee’s spending.
While META California has been upfront about wanting to elect lawmakers open to “AI innovation,” leaders at Grow California and California Leads insist they aren’t pushing a specific agenda.
“We’re trying to make a minority of the ideologues on both sides,” said Shaudi Fulp, a political strategist with Grow California. “Our whole goal is that legislators are not a rubber stamp for any special interest — whether it’s tech, whether it’s public sector labor, whether it’s business.”
Grow California was especially active in the Los Angeles County race for Senate District 26, a seat being vacated by progressive Democratic Sen. María Elena Durazo. The group spent $4.6 million supporting attorney Sara Hernandez, whose positions on healthcare and development are more centrist than those of her Democratic rival, Sarah Rascón.
“It was David and Goliath,” Rascón said of the race. “My Goliath was these outside tech corporate interests.”
Durazo had endorsed Rascón, while Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas backed Hernandez. Outside groups tied to the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters spent about $450,000 supporting Rascón — a fraction of the $9 million that flowed toward Hernandez’s campaign.
Rascón, an environmental advocate, said she entered the race partly because Durazo had been one of the few legislators willing to stand up to corporate interests. She pointed specifically to Durazo’s Senate Bill 716, which increased fines local governments could levy against property owners who violate health and safety codes in non-residential buildings. Durazo introduced the measure after a week-long warehouse fire broke out in Boyle Heights in June, sickening hundreds of nearby residents. Business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, opposed the bill’s scope, arguing it could impose steep costs on property owners.
“I think it’s such a shame to lose this seat in a progressive district that was one of the last soldiers holding the line for working people,” Rascón said.
Hernandez did not respond to requests for comment, but in a September Instagram video, she said she was proud her campaign had refused contributions from crypto, big tech and AI companies.
“If it’s not from me, I didn’t approve it. Don’t rope me in with outside money,” she wrote in the post’s caption.
A growing concern
For some advocacy groups, the scale of tech spending in state races has become an urgent issue.
“When they started announcing within the last year that they were going to be spending this money at the state level, that really freaked us out,” said Catherine Bracy, chief executive of TechEquity Collaborative, a Bay Area nonprofit focused on tech industry accountability. She views the surge in spending as part of a broader trend of growing tech influence over California policymaking.
This fall, the group’s political arm, TechEquity Action, launched a $1 million statewide ad campaign directing voters to a website, thetruthabouttechmoney.com, which tracked where industry dollars were being spent.
“We’ve seen what happens when, for example, Elon Musk spends $450 million on national elections. People do not like it,” Bracy said, referencing this week’s election results.
Still, she acknowledged that not all tech-aligned spending is identical. Larsen, for example, told KQED in October that he wants the state to pause all new data center construction until stronger AI regulations are in place. Yet his group, Grow California, spent millions opposing Jackie Elward, a progressive Assembly candidate in Marin and Sonoma counties who called for moratoriums on “anything related to AI.” That race, in Assembly District 12, was one of two where the Grow California-backed candidate, Eric Lucan, was trailing as returns came in.
Sonoma State political science professor David McCuan said the spending in that race appears to have backfired. Early, uncoordinated efforts by Grow California and committees tied to real estate and insurance interests inadvertently boosted Elward’s name recognition, while voter skepticism toward tech money stuck to Lucan — even though he had publicly distanced himself from it.
McCuan believes the broader spending pattern reflects an effort by major tech companies to get ahead of mounting public skepticism toward data centers and artificial intelligence, and he expects such spending to grow and become more coordinated in future election cycles.
“Big Tech is trying to preempt what should be a difficult regulatory environment,” he said.
As for whether this financial influence will ultimately shape how newly elected lawmakers vote, UC Riverside political science professor Shaun Bowler said money matters — but it isn’t everything.
“Lawmakers don’t just need money, they need to do things that will support the district or help the district,” Bowler said. “One billionaire isn’t the same as 100,000 votes.”
Original source: CalMatters
