How California's Tech Billionaires Spent $100 Million on Politics — With Mixed Results

California held its primary election on June 2, 2026. Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber announced that polls had closed, though vote counting would continue through June 9 for mailed ballots. Final results will be certified by July 10.

The most surprising outcome came in the gubernatorial race — the contest to pick California's next governor. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan spent roughly $50 million, mostly from tech industry donors, but finished sixth with only 4% of the vote. His backers included Google co-founder Sergey Brin and executives from Amazon, LinkedIn, DoorDash, and Palantir. Despite this massive support, Mahan conceded Tuesday night.

The gubernatorial race instead played out as polls predicted. Former Biden Health Secretary Xavier Becerra led the field, followed by Republican former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, and then progressive Democrat Tom Steyer in third place. Mahan's failure raises an obvious question: if tech billionaires can't buy a gubernatorial election, what can their money actually accomplish?

Where Tech Money Actually Won

The answer: downstream races got the job done.

While Silicon Valley's favorite governor candidate crashed and burned, the industry deployed a different strategy in races for state assembly and state senate. Two Super PACs — groups that can raise unlimited sums but can't coordinate directly with candidates — called Grow California and California Leads combined to spend strategically. Grow California raised $20 million from crypto entrepreneurs Chris Larsen and Tim Draper.

Scott Weiner, backed by tech money, secured enough votes to advance as a leading candidate for state senate, positioning him to potentially replace Nancy Pelosi. Ben Allen, also supported by the tech industry, appears likely to advance in the state insurance commissioner race.

In fact, with one exception, every single candidate supported by these two Super PACs advanced to the November general election. The success rate was remarkable.

An Orange County state assembly race shows how targeted this money became. Democrat Mark Pulido received approximately $2.25 million from both Super PACs and secured enough votes to reach a November runoff. Similar patterns played out across six races where Grow California poured in millions.

The broader context here is straightforward: tech money proved more effective in lower-profile races where voters have less information and opposition spending is thinner on the ground. In a statewide gubernatorial contest, no amount of advertising could overcome voter doubt about a candidate. But in a state assembly race that most voters never hear about, $2 million can dominate the conversation.

The Billionaire Tax Question Underlying It All

Why are California's tech billionaires spending this way? The answer points to a November ballot measure: a proposed 5% one-time tax on the state's roughly 200 billionaires.

Sergey Brin has personally spent $66 million since January fighting this tax. The broader tech industry deployed another $10 million through Super PACs to back candidates who oppose it. These candidates, once elected, will vote on future tax proposals and regulatory rules that affect the industry.

Representative Ro Khanna, a congressman, faces a primary challenge from tech entrepreneur Ethan Agarwal. The difference between them? Khanna supports the billionaire tax. Agarwal does not. This single race offers a test of whether billionaire spending can unseat politicians who back wealth taxes.

We've seen this movie before. In the 2010s, California's tech elite mobilized successfully against rent control measures and housing regulations. The current cycle looks similar, but more sophisticated — instead of simply running ads against a ballot measure, tech money is now recruiting and funding specific candidates who agree with them, and running opposition campaigns against those who don't.

Cryptocurrency's New Political Power

A final piece of the puzzle involves cryptocurrency. Chris Larsen's $12 billion fortune comes from co-founding Ripple Labs, a cryptocurrency firm. Tim Draper is another major crypto investor. Together, they've poured millions into more than a dozen primary campaigns.

Why does this matter? Because cryptocurrency regulation remains unsettled at the federal level, and states like California are starting to set their own rules. If candidates backed by crypto money win in November, they may influence how California regulates blockchain technology and digital assets.

What Happens Next

County election officials have 30 days from June 2 to count provisional ballots, late-arriving mail ballots, and other outstanding votes. Some close races may not be decided until late June. The final certification date is July 10.

For the November general election, the pattern from this primary suggests something worth watching: tech industry influence operates most effectively in races that don't command much public attention. The gubernatorial collapse shows that even unlimited money cannot overcome real voter skepticism in high-profile contests. But tech money appears to have found a formula that works in state assembly and senate races, where spending budgets are smaller and voters pay less attention.

Given the results so far, and given the November ballot measure on the billionaire tax, expect tech spending to increase significantly before the fall election.