Exclusive: Wealthy governor candidate Steyer calls to end corporate PAC spending
Tom Steyer, the San Francisco investor whose campaign for governor is likely to be backed by his prodigious personal wealth, says in his latest video spot that if elected he will ban spending by corporate political action committees.
“As governor I will work my tail off to ban corporate PAC money,” Steyer says in his latest video, which stylistically reflects previous ads — with shots of Steyer, seated and speaking directly into camera, interspersed with shots of Californians working various blue-collar jobs. The billionaire has mounted his campaign on economic issues, pitching voters on the idea that as an outsider without ties to special interests he can push changes through Sacramento to lower California’s cost of living.
Part of that would entail banning corporate spending in state politics, he said in the ad, which his campaign provided to The Sacramento Bee before releasing it Friday. “The corporations who are making your life too expensive like it that way,” Steyer said. “California needs to listen to California citizens, not lobbyists. That’s why we have to ban corporate PAC money.”
The ad may resonate with voters alarmed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have removed many limits on how much corporations can spend to buy the attention and goodwill of elected officials, and have led campaigns for public office to increasingly become ad spending arms races. But it may also draw accusations of hypocrisy from critics who already suggest Steyer is using his fortune to buy the governor’s mansion.
Steyer, 68, launched his campaign to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom in November. The founder of Farallon Capital Management — a San Francisco-based hedge fund with tens of billions under management — has spent prolifically on political causes he cares about, as well as his own campaigns. In 2012, he spent millions on a ballot measure aimed at raising more money for schools, and in 2016 funded campaigning for a hike on the state’s tobacco tax. He also put up around $13 million to the campaign to pass Proposition 50, the successful redistricting measure championed last year by Newsom and California Democrats as a response to Republican maneuvering in Texas and other red states.
Steyer reportedly spent $250 million of his personal fortune on his unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign.
Earlier this month, Steyer said California should ban political spending by regulated monopoly utilities, such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co. He made the suggestion at a Sacramento press conference on the anniversary of the deadly Los Angeles fires. Evidence suggests one of those blazes, the Eaton Fire, was started by faulty utility equipment. The Legislature and governor should ban political donations by utilities to keep them from “influencing political decisions that impact their bottom line against the interests of California citizens.”
His latest ad takes that suggestion a step further by saying he would try to take corporate PAC spending out of state politics entirely. It comes at a time when lobbying in Sacramento, and the way lawmakers spend their campaign cash, has come under renewed scrutiny in the wake of the November arrest of Newsom’s former chief of staff Dana Williamson and two other prominent political consultants by the FBI. Williamson is accused of a fraudulent scheme to divert campaign funds and of tax evasion. She has pled not guilty.
This month, The Bee published an investigation into the way some lawmakers accumulate large war chests for ballot measures and political campaigns that they never in fact spend it on. Some of that money has instead been used to pay for lavish fundraisers and travel, or for campaign giving after a lawmaker leaves office and becomes a lobbyist. Ethics experts and campaign finance reform advocates say the state agencies that oversee political fundraising and spending haven’t kept pace with its growth.
Speaking at a forum of journalists hosted by the news organization CalMatters this week, some lawmakers bemoaned the amounts of money they had to raise to run elections. But they described it as a necessary evil for people who want to run for office but aren’t independently wealth — until policymakers can muster the political will to pass campaign finance reform and also create mechanisms for publicly-funded elections.
Under such a system, candidates would be limited to paying for campaigns with public funds that may cost taxpayer dollars but also even the playing field and place the emphasis on policy positions, not the size of candidates’ checkbooks.
“You have to have money to run for office,” said state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, D-Los Angeles, a former journalist and labor organizer. “I mean, I don’t know how else, until we get our comprehensive campaign reform, which I want. Let’s do public campaigns.”
Other lawmakers on the panel noted that campaign giving is just one way industries and other special interests influence legislation. Capitol lobbyists, who bring expertise and connections to bear on the shaping of policy, are another force in the state house that is not directly tied to campaign giving, even if those checks make it easier for them to get a lawmaker’s ear.
This story was originally published January 22, 2026 at 5:52 PM.
