Tom Steyer's California gubernatorial campaign has ended without advancing to the general election, marking the second time the billionaire climate activist has wagered more than nine figures on a losing bid for office. NBC News projects that former Fox News host Steve Hilton and former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra will proceed to the general election, leaving Steyer unable to break into the top two slots in the all-party primary.
The final tally on Steyer's campaign expenditure was staggering. He poured more than $215 million of his own money into the effort, with advertising alone consuming $209 million, according to ad-tracking firm AdImpact. That represents roughly two-thirds of all advertising spending across the entire governor's race, despite dozens of candidates and outside groups competing for airtime. Becerra, who came second in ad spending, invested just $11.7 million.
The California loss follows a similar pattern from six years earlier. During his 2020 presidential run, Steyer contributed more than $300 million to his campaign through direct contributions and loans, according to federal disclosures. He ultimately dropped out after the first four contests in late February 2020, yet his spending still ranked among the top four nationwide, exceeded only by eventual nominees Joe Biden and Donald Trump, plus self-funding billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spent over $1 billion in his own failed Democratic primary bid.
The data raises persistent questions about the efficacy of self-funding strategies in modern politics. Despite overwhelming financial advantages, neither Steyer nor Bloomberg successfully translated their wealth into electoral victories. Yet the model persists. Healthcare executive Rick Jackson has invested more than $90 million in his Georgia gubernatorial campaign, with a Republican primary runoff against Lt. Gov. Burt Jones set for next week.
Steyer's spending advantage in California was so pronounced that it consumed two-thirds of all television and digital advertising in a field that included multiple other wealthy candidates and well-funded organizations. The disproportion raises questions about whether saturation messaging reaches a point of diminishing returns or whether structural factors in electoral dynamics resist even unlimited financial firepower.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "Steyer has now spent nearly half a billion dollars across two campaigns with nothing to show but exit polls and donor fatigue. At some point, unlimited wealth stops being a strategy and becomes a cautionary tale."
Comments