Tom Steyer rails against Chevron money — but it flows to his allies, too
For months, the head of California’s progressive contingent, Democratic Assemblymember Alex Lee, D-San Jose, has voiced support for Tom Steyer, the progressive billionaire running to be California’s next governor.
After Democrat Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race and Xavier Becerra became a surprise contender, Lee began retweeting criticisms of the former California attorney general, several of which focused on a $39,200 donation Becerra’s campaign received last summer from the oil company Chevron.
But Lee has also benefited from Chevron’s political giving — he’s received over $29,000 from political action committees that get money directly from Chevron.
“Large corporations in California give to all sorts of candidates, all across the political spectrum, all the time,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego.
Lee’s campaign finance records reflect how many avenues large corporations have to inject money into the political system. Lee’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Two political action committees — the LGBT Leadership Caucus Fund, and the Asian Pacific Islander Leadership Caucus Fund — are responsible for the $29,000 in donations, which were given ahead of Lee’s 2024 and 2026 bids for Assembly. Over the past three years, Chevron has given each committee more than $100,000.
Lee is one of seven Democratic lawmakers who have endorsed Steyer for governor and received money from Chevron or committees that get money from the oil company. The number shows how ubiquitous Chevron, like many large corporations, is in funding campaigns in California, and how lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have benefited from the company’s largesse.
Kousser said donations represent a desire for companies to have some kind of access, and haven’t been proven to affect lawmakers’ decision-making.
“It’s a way for companies to maintain some hope of having an open door to their office, to having their point heard,” he said.
Chevron gave money directly to the campaigns of 21 sitting Democratic lawmakers during the 2024 election cycle, and gave to 11 Democratic lawmakers in 2025. The donations composed just a portion of the $10.8 million the company gave to political causes over the past three years. That includes millions spent on independent expenditure committees to support or oppose candidates. Chevron did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition to Lee, Sens. Henry Stern, D-Sherman Oaks; Caroline Menjivar, D-Panorama City; and Assemblymembers Chris Ward, D-San Diego; Gregg Hart, D-Santa Barbara; and LaShae Sharp-Collins, D-San Diego, have all endorsed Steyer and have received money from PACs that get money from Chevron.
Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, took $9,000 directly from oil and gas companies, including Chevron, when she ran in 2024. Quirk-Silva did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
When asked Wednesday about a $3,000 donation he’d received from the Asian Chamber of Commerce PAC — which receives donations from Chevron — Hart said he didn’t know Chevron donated to the PAC.
“As a practical matter, it’s pretty hard for us to sort through that,” he said.
Still, Hart thinks it’s a bad look for a gubernatorial candidate to receive money from oil and gas companies.
“It says something about taking money from oil companies, and particularly at this moment in time with record corporate profits and prices that are really onerous for consumers,” he said.
Steyer maintains that Becerra should return the money. He said during a news conference Wednesday that the money compromises Becerra’s independence.
“If you take the money, you have an implied obligation to earn it,” he said. “Anybody who tells me that that’s not true is unrealistic.”
When questioned about why Chevron is supporting him during a gubernatorial forum last week, Becerra said it’s a “free country.”
“Chevron wants to give me a check. That’s that’s their prerogative,” he said.
Steyer has proposed taking steps to ban all corporate spending in elections, even revoking the privileges of corporations that give to campaigns. The billionaire candidate is mining a rich vein — a recent IGS poll found that of the 68% of registered voters who believe American democracy “is under attack,” most attribute it to “special interests and big money controlling things.”
Becerra has raised about $6.2 million in his campaign for governor. Steyer has raised over $134 million, mostly drawing on his own fortune, which he amassed during his time running the Farallon Capital Management hedge fund.
“Unless you are a very wealthy self-funded candidate, if you want to be the governor of California, that’s going to take a lot of money. And it’s really hard to turn down that money,” said Jessica Levinson, a government ethics expert and Loyola Law School professor.
The Farallon Capital Management hedge fund has been a liability for Steyer, in part due to its investments in private prisons that now house undocumented immigrants. Steyer has said he regrets the investments.
Former Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said it’s responsible for voters to consider who a candidate is receiving money from and weigh that with the candidate’s record, but “purity tests” aren’t the answer.
At the end of the day, he said, “you have to be willing to disagree with and vote against your campaign donors. That’s the mark of a good elected official.”
Levinson said even if a candidate denies a direct donation, corporations will find a way to support the candidate they want to win the election.
“What we’ve learned,” Levinson said, “is that when you try and plug one hole, the money generally flows to another.”
