Tech Titans Unleash Significant Funds on California Elections
By Khari Johnson and Jeremia Kimelman, CalMatters. Major tech corporations, such as Facebook’s parent company Meta, set unprecedented records in lobbying expenditures directed at California officials last year.
Lobbyists and visitors convene in the rotunda of the state Capitol in Sacramento on September 12, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters
This narrative was initially published by CalMatters. Subscriptions are available for their newsletters.
In this election cycle, the technology sector has emerged as a formidable financial force.
An analysis by CalMatters indicates that Google, Meta, and affiliated tech entities contribute at least 20% of all funds allocated to external organizations engaged in legislative race expenditures.
These tech behemoths aim to counteract an increasing array of state regulations that they argue could hamper industry growth.
Notably, Meta has recently devoted significant resources to lobbying efforts, pushing to moderate regulations concerning artificial intelligence while attempting to influence legislation surrounding a myriad of data center initiatives.
Funding from technology entities has propped up four out of the top ten political action committees striving to sway California’s legislative landscape.
Among the notable financiers backing these substantial independent expenditure groups are Google, Meta, Uber, cryptocurrency magnate Chris Larsen, and co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin.
Critics contend that this expenditure signifies an attempt to purchase the California Legislature, whereas proponents within the industry assert that these companies merely seek representation akin to any other lobbying group.
As of October 29, funding for California Assembly and Senate campaigns has surged past $128 million this year, a marked increase from $74.2 million in 2022, the last non-presidential electoral year, and nearing $100 million in 2024.
Independent expenditures, earmarked for advertising and direct mail campaigns, have evolved into a pivotal outlet for political funding since they evade state-imposed spending limitations that govern candidate contributions.
Individuals can donate up to $5,900 per election to a legislative candidate, and there is a prohibition against coordinating these independent expenditures with candidates’ campaign strategies.
Across the nation, pro-AI super PACs have allocated over $50 million to influence 46 congressional races, catering to both Democrats and Republicans, as reported by the New York Times.
Notably, Tesla CEO Elon Musk is said to have contributed over $350 million to the Republican effort during this midterm cycle, outpacing all other donors.
Leading Expenditures
According to CalMatters, the independent committee investing the most in legislative races to date this year is backed by tech investors Tim Draper and Chris Larsen.
Their coalition, GROW California, has expended over $23 million to diminish the sway of labor unions, which recently had seven out of nine of their proposed laws designed to safeguard workers against AI ratified. The coalition claims its mission is to shape California’s political landscape for a decade.
Trailing GROW California in financial commitment is California Leads, a coalition predominantly funded by Google and Meta, which has engaged nearly $152 million this election cycle, notably contributing to the reelection campaign of Republican Assemblymember Greg Wallis from the Inland Empire.
These coalitions have also supported Democratic candidates such as Eric Lucan in Marin County and Sara Hernandez and Brian Goldsmith for Senate seats in Los Angeles.
Both Lucan and Hernandez triumphed over candidates backed by labor unions during the primary elections.
Hernandez faced criticism from opponent Sarah Rascón, who is endorsed by the Democratic Socialists, for accepting funds from affluent tech investors, which Rascón argued amounted to a strategy to acquire an assembly position. Hernandez did not provide a response to the inquiry.
Goldsmith expressed uncertainty regarding the motivations behind tech entities supporting his campaign but advocated for campaign finance reform aimed at distancing special interest funding from politics.
“In a time where Trump has shirked accountability, it falls upon states to competently regulate technology—California ought to spearhead this effort,” Goldsmith remarked.
“I aim to avoid pushing these industries and jobs toward Texas or Tennessee, yet I will demand high standards from them. I genuinely believe we can achieve both objectives.”
Other notable financial contributors include groups associated with Meta and Uber.
Meta’s initiative, Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across (META) California, allocated $1.3 million to support Democratic candidate and ex-Palantir executive Scott Sakakihara in a Senate district adjacent to Silicon Valley.
Two committees predominantly financed by Meta and Google accounted for more than 90% of independent expenditures in favor of Democrat Andrae Gonzales, who aspires for an Assembly seat in Kern County.
Gonzales contests an open position in a district that remains Democratic but experienced the most significant partisan shift toward conservatism compared to any other Assembly district during the 2024 presidential election, as per the California Target Book.
His primary opponent, Ana Palacio, a union-endorsed Democrat, encountered around $800,000 in opposing funds, with over 40% derived from tech interests.
These tech-focused committees also represented 63% of the independent expenditures supporting Democrat Annalisa Perea in an open Fresno Assembly district.
In the primary, she outperformed Sandra Celedon, a Democrat backed by healthcare unions and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Both Perea and Gonzales did not respond to inquiries from CalMatters. Sakakihara, the former Palantir executive, refrained from addressing how he articulates his dialogue with voters regarding tech companies backing his campaign, but he stated that the sector has engendered remarkable economic expansion alongside profound societal ramifications necessitating stricter oversight and government intervention.
JOBSPAC, an independent expenditure consortium established by the California Chamber of Commerce, has attracted $3 million from Brin, $2.5 million from Meta, nearly $1 million from Google, alongside substantial contributions from corporations such as Amazon and Airbnb.
Money from landlords, major consultancy firms, and McDonald’s also bolstered JOBSPAC’s coffers.
Legislative Action PAC, aimed at aiding Republican candidates, secured over $500,000 from business interests, including Airbnb, Amazon, DoorDash, Meta, and Uber.
Understanding Tech’s Ambitions
In certain respects, the technology sector’s campaign expenditures mirror those of other interest groups, albeit on a grander scale.
Stephen Aguilar, an AI researcher in education at the University of Southern California, drew a parallel between the tech industry and Texas oil; he argues that large companies spending significantly to protect their interests is a universal practice.
He asserted, “This is the modus operandi for every industry, and for better or worse, it reflects our political framework established post-Citizens United,” the landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for unrestricted independent spending.
Industry proponents share a similar perspective. Robert Singleton, director of policy and public affairs for the national tech policy advocate Chamber of Progress, posits that Silicon Valley is merely aligning itself with other sectors.
“If we fail to allocate resources, we will continue to witness an influx of legislation targeting emerging industries.”
Robert Singleton, Chamber of Progress
According to Singleton, tech interests desire to back moderate and pragmatic candidates who, within a predominantly Democratic framework, acknowledge the industry’s value to California’s economy, innovation, and tax revenue.
“Innovative technologies require some latitude,” Singleton emphasized. “If California lawmakers persist in imposing regulations prior to allowing businesses to establish themselves, they risk stifling competitiveness, resulting in declines in tax income and job availability.”
Tech’s concentrated focus on California may be particularly acute given Congress’s hesitance to impose industry regulation at the federal level.
“State legislatures are now realistically the sole battleground for formulating AI policy over the next two to three years,” remarked Catherine Bracy, executive director of Tech Equity Action, a group dedicated to tracking financial flows from the tech sector into political campaigns. California is at the forefront, enacting more AI regulations than any other state.
Critics like Bracy and Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal from Long Beach contend that the industry endeavors to effectively acquire legislative control.
However, some analysts argue the industry’s vigorous spending may inadvertently provoke public opposition.
Jeremy Mack, executive director of the Phoenix Project, which scrutinizes tech financial influences in Bay Area politics, observed that GROW California had initial successes, with 11 out of 12 of its candidates advancing to the general election.
Yet, he remarked that growing public discontent with organizations like GROW SF may alter the course of their influence.
“These organizations typically possess a short lifespan as they become increasingly toxic and detested due to their conspicuous spending,” Mack noted.
In a strategic counter, the Guardrails Alliance is actively inciting public ire. Recently, they allocated nearly $2 million toward advertisements condemning candidates who have accepted funds from the pro-AI super PAC Leading the Future, including Los Angeles-area Democratic Representative Jimmy Gomez.
“The tech sector has always acted as though every problem is solvable with increased expenditure,” asserted Guardrails Alliance’s political director, Charlie Blaettler.
Assemblymember Lowenthal expressed concern about the tech industry’s financial machinations aimed at constructing an expansive network of influence he views as detrimental.
“I witnessed money being dispersed during the primaries to candidates who have yet to establish stances on tech issues, suggesting a coordinated effort to purchase legislative control,” he said.
Lowenthal remains vigilant towards the industry’s endeavors, having coauthored legislation aimed at enhancing digital privacy regulations and imposing penalties on social media platforms who endanger minors.
In February, Lowenthal cautioned that the tech sector has only a finite window—one to three years—before entrenched financial interests can severely impact an entire generation.
Earlier this month, he forecasted a future in which California could become a state dominated by tech corporations.
“The scale of their expenditure far eclipses that of any other sector or interest group, and I suspect what we’ve witnessed so far is merely the tip of the iceberg,” he stated regarding the industry’s financial investments.
Source link: Calmatters.org.
