Hilton, a British American former Fox News host, received about 25% of the vote in the June 2 primary, with roughly 88% of ballots counted as of Tuesday evening. Under California’s top-two primary system, the two highest vote-getters move on to the general election regardless of party.

Becerra, a longtime Democratic politician who previously served as California attorney general and U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, emerged from a large field of Democratic candidates to claim the other November spot.

In a statement, Hilton said his campaign would lead a movement for change in Sacramento and portrayed Becerra as a continuation of years of Democratic control in California.

“My mission is clear: to go to Sacramento, clean up the corruption, cut your costs, help your business, and fix our schools,” Hilton said. “We can’t keep voting the same way and expect different results.”

Hilton’s second-place finish pushed billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer out of the race despite Steyer spending $215 million of his own money on a populist campaign that heavily emphasized television advertising. Steyer had hoped to turn the governor’s race into a fight within the Democratic Party, but the November election will instead become a more traditional Democrat-versus-Republican matchup in a midterm year likely to be framed by Democrats as a referendum on President Donald Trump’s administration.

Steyer conceded Tuesday evening and endorsed Becerra. In his statement, he said he was proud that his campaign had made “enemies” of state utilities, technology companies and Big Oil. He also said he understood voters who “just couldn’t stomach voting for a billionaire.”

“It is absolutely essential that (Trump’s) handpicked candidate does not hold the keys to California,” Steyer said, referring to Hilton.

Hilton led in polling for much of the primary as Democrats split support among several candidates. His campaign appealed to conservative voters with promises to reduce income taxes and the gas tax, encourage more oil drilling and roll back environmental rules, including California’s greenhouse gas reduction requirements.

He has argued that Californians struggling with high housing, energy and transportation costs are ready to end what he calls “16 years of one-party rule.” The last Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, left office in 2011.

“The people of California have really been generous in giving the Democratic Party the opportunity to show that their ideas work,” Hilton said last week during a Sacramento news conference where he declared victory early. “I think the patience is running out, really.”

Still, Hilton enters the general election as an underdog in a state where Democrats hold a nearly two-to-one voter registration advantage over Republicans. GOP candidates have reached the general election in every California governor’s race over the past two decades, but Democrats have dominated statewide contests since Schwarzenegger’s tenure.

Hilton has also been endorsed by Trump, who remains deeply unpopular with many California voters. Hilton, however, has embraced the support and argued it could benefit the state.

“I think it’s going to be very helpful to Californians to have a governor who has a good working relationship with the president and his team,” he said.

A central piece of Hilton’s campaign is a proposal to eliminate state income taxes on the first $100,000 in earnings and apply a flat tax rate above that amount. He said last week his campaign may consider raising the threshold after reviewing California’s cost of living. Either version would substantially reduce state revenue, and Hilton has said he would make up the difference by cutting one-third of state spending.

He has not detailed how he would move such a plan through the state Legislature, where Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses.

Hilton was born in London to Hungarian immigrants and began his political career with Britain’s Conservative Party. He became a key adviser in the rise of Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010. Hilton moved to Silicon Valley in 2012, where his wife worked as a Google executive, and later became involved in startups. In 2017, during Trump’s first presidency, he launched a weekly Fox News program, “The Next Revolution,” which ran until 2023.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Republican Steve Hilton Advances to November Race Against Becerra appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

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

The post More Candidates Are Bankrolling Their Own Campaigns. Should Voters Be Concerned? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The issue has resurfaced as the June 2 primary approaches, with opponents within his own party sharpening their attacks and questioning whether Steyer’s business history aligns with his progressive platform.

The controversy came to a head during a recent town hall in San Diego, where a protester interrupted the event to confront Steyer about his former financial ties. Holly Taylor, a local resident, accused him of profiting from detention facilities, referencing a private prison in Otay Mesa that was backed by Steyer’s hedge fund years ago.

Steyer co-founded Farallon Capital in 1986, building it into one of the largest hedge funds in the country. Financial disclosures show the firm held a significant stake—valued at more than $89 million—in Corrections Corporation of America in 2005. The company, now known as CoreCivic, operates detention facilities across the U.S., including sites used by federal immigration authorities.

The connection has long drawn criticism. Protesters raised the issue earlier this year at the California Democratic Party convention, and Steyer’s rivals have continued to bring it up on the campaign trail.

State Superintendent Tony Thurmond recently argued that Steyer’s wealth was partly built on industries that contradict his current political messaging. Rep. Eric Swalwell also criticized Steyer on social media, tying his campaign to the broader debate over immigration detention policies.

Steyer has not denied the investment and has repeatedly said he regrets it. He sold his stake in the prison company more than two decades ago and has described the experience as a turning point.

“It was a mistake,” Steyer said during a recent town hall in San Francisco, explaining that the investment ultimately led him to rethink both his career and values. He later stepped away from Farallon entirely, saying he no longer wanted to be involved in that type of business.

Since leaving the hedge fund, Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, have focused on political advocacy and philanthropy, including efforts tied to climate change and criminal justice reform.

Still, questions remain about his financial ties. Public disclosures show that Steyer and his wife continue to receive income connected to Farallon through various investments and holdings. His campaign has said safeguards are in place to prevent him from profiting from industries he opposes, adding that any such earnings would be donated to charity.

Steyer’s wealth has played a central role in his political ambitions. He poured nearly $342 million of his own money into his 2020 presidential bid and has already contributed more than $100 million to his 2026 gubernatorial campaign, according to state filings. His heavy spending has made him one of the most visible candidates in the race, with thousands of television ads airing across California in recent weeks.

Despite that financial advantage, history suggests money alone doesn’t guarantee success in California politics. Past self-funded candidates, including former eBay executive Meg Whitman, have spent heavily only to fall short at the ballot box.

Steyer remains one of the leading Democratic contenders in the crowded field to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom. But as the campaign intensifies, his opponents—and activists—continue to press him on the origins of his fortune.

For some critics, including those protesting regularly outside the Otay Mesa detention facility, the issue goes beyond politics. Taylor, who confronted Steyer at the town hall, said her concerns are rooted in what she sees as the human cost behind those investments.

“My main issue is that he has gotten financial gain off of these people suffering,” she said.

The post Steyer Faces Renewed Scrutiny Over Past Investments as Governor’s Race Heats Up appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Because, after all, the former hedge fund titan doesn’t exactly share their daily ordeal of scraping up enough money to pay for rent, groceries and gas in the run-down car.

And he doesn’t have any record in public office to point to. He’s trying to start his elective career at the top.
So, what’s the solution? Well, you can be a global celebrity like super-rich actor Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was elected in 2003. Or a Gold Rush tycoon like Leland Stanford back in 1861. Other than those two, there’s a long list of well-heeled rookie failures.

They include Republican Meg Whitman, who blew $144 million of her fortune losing in 2010. And Al Checchi, who spent $40 million of his own money getting beaten in the 1994 Democratic primary.

“Look, they didn’t have anything to say,” Steyer told me while sipping tea at a popular hangout near the state Capitol, specifically mentioning Whitman and Checchi. “They’d never done anything. Not like I’ve done for 14 years.”

Steyer, 68, who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, touts his record of funding and promoting progressive causes, including successful ballot campaigns that raised tobacco taxes, closed a major corporate tax loophole and beat back oil industry efforts to kill climate fighting laws.

“I could give you 10 things I’ve done about environmental sustainability and economic justice,” he said.

“Why trust me? Because I’ve gotten results. And I don’t owe anybody anything.”

The Democrat spent $12 million on TV ads last year pushing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50 that allowed the Legislature to gerrymander congressional districts aimed at gaining five more Democratic seats in California.

Being a billionaire allows Steyer to buy all the TV spots he wants. He already has popped for $27 million worth running for governor.

But astronomical wealth comes with a political price.

“California voters do not cotton to some rich guy who has never spent a day in office but looks in the mirror one morning and suddenly sees a governor of California,” says veteran Democratic strategist Garry South.

So, in his campaign TV commercials, Steyer wears casual backyard barbecue garb trying to look like Mr. Average, but with a populist agenda.

“I’m the billionaire who’s going to take on the billionaires,” he says.

That sounds counterintuitive, and I’m skeptical about how well it sells.

Steyer knows he sorely needs labor support to seem credible among the working class. That’s why he recently joined rallies for striking teachers in San Francisco and healthcare workers in San Diego.

He has scored endorsements from the California School Employees Assn. — a union representing school staff — and the California Nurses Assn.

Nurses are backing Steyer largely because he has embraced their No. 1 goal: a single-payer, state-run health insurance system.

They’ve attempted to push that in Sacramento for years and failed. And for good reason.

Single-payer would cost the state barrels of money it doesn’t have. Moreover, it would replace not only private insurance, but popular federal Medicare and the state’s Medi-Cal program for the poor. The federal government would need to agree. Fat chance.

I asked Steyer whether he really believes the state bureaucracy is capable of handling such an ambitious undertaking.

“We’re going to have to get back to having a government that works,” he replied, in what sounded like a knock on Newsom and his predecessors.

How could he make a single-payer system work? “God is in the details,” he answered, a phrase he frequently uses. Translation: “I don’t know.”

“We’re going to work through it. That’ll take at least three years… But we’re going to have to do it…. Healthcare costs have been escalating for a very long time. And they’re eating up the [state] budget.”

After Steyer left hedge fund investing, he became an ardent crusader for clean energy and fighting climate change. It was his core issue running for president in 2020, when he spent $340 million before giving up.

But these days, he barely mentions climate. The better politics du jour is advocating for “affordability” — especially affordable housing.

Steyer said he doesn’t have a “silver bullet” for lowering housing costs. He has “silver buckshot” — a scattergun of solutions for boosting housing supply, plus rent control.

He’d shorten the time for issuing construction permits, require rezoning to develop vacant land, tax unoccupied housing left off the market and build higher — more like in New York’s Manhattan, where he was raised.

“What we’re doing is sprawl,” he said. “And what sprawl leads to is an awful lot of commuting, a lot of driving.”

That’s been a problem for generations, I noted. Suburban ranch-style housing is the California way. “People can change,” he said. “I think people want to.”

I asked him about the slow-poke bullet train project that’s costing four times original estimates.

“Of course, I’m in favor of high speed rail,” he said. “But good grief. We’ve been working on this for an incredibly long time and spent an incredible amount of money. As far as I can tell, we haven’t built anything. If we’re going to do high-speed rail, we have to build it at a reasonable price. And we haven’t been able to do that.”

Might he abandon the project? “I want to look at it,” he said.

The odds are against him ever getting the opportunity.

But the odds aren’t exciting for any candidate in this ho-hum contest.

Steyer is running in the middle of the pack, based on polls. He has hired the strategists who managed Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s victorious campaign for New York mayor.

There’s no front-runner for governor. But Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) has some momentum. He recently was endorsed by Sen. Adam Schiff. And he’ll also soon be endorsed by influential former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, I’m told.

Voters will do their all-important endorsing in the June 2 primary.

The post The billionaire who wants to be California governor appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

His two core promises — which could appear at odds — are to preserve the state’s status as a hub for business and innovation while also lowering California’s cost of living by making corporations pay “their fair share,” he said in a video message.

The nearly two-minute campaign launch film, which intersperses sleek graphics with footage of line cooks, ranchers and manufacturing workers on the job, encapsulates those dueling themes. 

“There’s a reason everybody comes here to start businesses — because this is the place that invents the future,” Steyer says near the start of the video. “I never want to lose that spark.” 

Steyer made his fortune as the founder of Farallon Capital, a hedge fund headquartered in San Francisco that currently manages about $42 billion in assets. After selling his stake in the company in 2012, Steyer started NextGen America, a liberal nonprofit that supports progressive positions on issues such as climate change, immigration, health care and education. The group also launched a labor-aligned super PAC to fund races nationwide.

His activism through NextGen America has elevated Steyer’s profile in recent years from little-known hedge fund manager to global climate activist and Republican antagonizer. He has spent millions to pass progressive ballot measures to uphold California environmental laws, raise taxes on tobacco to fund health care and push states to invest in more renewable energy.

Gov. Gavin Newsom terms out next year. At least six other Democrats are running to replace him, including former Rep. Katie Porter, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. 

While a billionaire former financial executive might be at odds with a party base hungry for a more relatable fighter, he’s attempting to appeal to everyday Californians by spotlighting the issue that most people say is their top priority — affordability. 

“The Californians who make this state run are being run over by the cost of living,” Steyer says later in the video. “Californians deserve a life they can afford.”

Steyer also promises to “launch the largest drive to build homes that you can afford” in state history, rein in monopolistic utilities that have driven up costs and “drop our sky-high energy prices.”

Steyer’s nearly $13 million advertising blitz in support of Proposition 50, the congressional redistricting plan that voters approved earlier this month via special election, led many California political insiders to speculate that he would launch another bid for governor. 

He alluded to his gubernatorial ambitions when he launched a controversial advertisement that, rather than amplify the Yes on Prop. 50 campaign’s message of checking the Trump administration’s power, touted his own calls to impeach and resist President Donald Trump.

The post Billionaire activist Tom Steyer joins race to succeed Newsom as California governor appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.