California voters heading to the polls Tuesday are facing a familiar question in a new and unusually expensive form: When candidates spend large sums of their own money to run for office, is that a sign of independence from special interests — or an attempt by the wealthy to purchase political power?
The issue is especially prominent this election cycle, led by liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, who has put $213 million of his own money into his campaign for governor. But the broader trend extends far beyond the governor’s race. More than 200 California candidates have collectively contributed about $250 million of their personal wealth to their campaigns this year, according to a CalMatters analysis of campaign finance records.
That total is roughly eight times higher than the amount self-funded by candidates during the last gubernatorial election in 2022. It also marks the highest level of candidate self-financing since California began keeping digital campaign finance records in 1999.
The last California candidate to approach Steyer’s level of personal spending was Republican Meg Whitman, who contributed more than $140 million to her unsuccessful 2010 campaign for governor, a record at the time.
Other statewide candidates have spent heavily on themselves in past elections, though at far lower levels. Steve Poizner put $14 million into his 2006 campaign for insurance commissioner. Eleni Kounalakis spent more than $8 million in her 2018 bid for lieutenant governor. Yvonne Yiu contributed nearly $6 million to her 2022 campaign for controller.
The surge is also showing up in races farther down the ballot. Candidates for state Senate have put nearly $4 million of their own money into campaigns this cycle, the highest total recorded for the chamber and more than double the $1.7 million candidates contributed 20 years ago. Congressional candidates in California have contributed more than $29 million to their own campaigns, the most in any cycle over the last two decades.
Some of the largest self-funded congressional campaigns in state history are taking place this year. Two of the five California congressional candidates who have spent the most of their own money in the past 20 years are on the ballot this cycle.
In the race to replace Nancy Pelosi in her San Francisco-based district, Democrat Saikat Chakrabarti has contributed nearly $9 million to his campaign, the most ever by a congressional primary candidate in California. In the North Bay, Eric Jones has put more than $5 million of his own money into his campaign against fellow Democrat Mike Thompson.
Chakrabarti has argued that his personal spending is a response to the large sums being spent against him. He said using his own resources allows him to avoid spending his campaign seeking money from major donors and later owing them political favors.
Jeremy Mack, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group The Phoenix Project, said the increase in self-funding reflects a campaign finance system that has become more expensive since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which loosened restrictions on outside political spending by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.
The result, Mack said, is that large-scale spending by outside groups often pressures candidates to raise or spend even more to remain competitive. In California, he said, business interests, real estate groups and law enforcement unions have frequently aligned behind similar candidates.
Some voters see self-funding as a preferable alternative to corporate-backed campaigns. Maria Colon, a Sacramento voter who attended a Steyer rally last week, said she is wary of corporate contributions and believes campaign fundraising should be limited. While large personal spending can raise questions, she said, corporate donors generally expect something in return.
Campaign cash remains a major factor in whether a candidate can be taken seriously, said Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University. A candidate with enough personal money to launch a campaign, he said, can quickly become viable.
Andrew Coolidge, a Republican running for Assembly District 3 in Northern California, has contributed more to his campaign than any other donor. He said voters should question candidates who have the ability to invest in their own campaigns but choose not to. A candidate who puts personal money into a race, he said, shows commitment and may be freer to make decisions based on conscience.
Others see both sides of the issue. Chris Anderson, a Lodi City Council candidate who has self-funded part of his campaign and attended the Steyer rally, said personal spending can make a candidate less dependent on special interests. At the same time, he said, voters should still ask what forces and relationships helped wealthy candidates gain their fortunes.
Political experts say voters are likely to weigh a candidate’s background, record and public involvement alongside spending. Hussey said wealthy contenders may draw more suspicion if they appear suddenly without a history of civic or political engagement.
That distinction has been raised in comparisons between Steyer and Whitman. Whitman had been involved in Republican presidential politics, including Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s 2008 campaigns, before running for governor. Steyer has spent more than a decade involved in environmental advocacy and Democratic politics.
Steyer has rejected the argument that his personal spending amounts to an effort to buy office. At a recent rally, he said voters should consider the money being spent against him and argued that he is the only candidate in the race not compromised by corporate donations.
His opponents disagree. At a recent event at Stanford University, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter said wealth does not make a candidate immune to influence. She compared Steyer’s argument to one made by Donald Trump — that personal wealth makes a politician less beholden to special interests — and said she finds that claim troubling in a democracy.
Original source: CalMatters
