Billionaire Tom Steyer's 'Class Traitor' Message Falls Flat with Californians
In a historic bid for the governor's seat, Tom Steyer, a prominent Democratic megadonor, launched an anti-corporate campaign that shattered spending records. However, his efforts failed to fully resonate with the progressive voters he needed to secure a win.
During an election night event in San Francisco, Steyer addressed the crowd, as seen in a photograph taken by Noah Berger of the Associated Press. The event was held in the city where Steyer had hoped to garner significant support.
In Sacramento, California, Steyer's gubernatorial campaign made headlines as he positioned himself as a fierce opponent of moneyed powers, spending over $200 million in the process. Despite his substantial investment, California voters ultimately did not support his candidacy.
Steyer's record-breaking spending was largely fueled by his own wealth, as he attempted to succeed Gavin Newsom as governor. His campaign was marked by an extensive and pervasive advertising blitz, which aimed to introduce him to voters as a champion of integrity and a formidable foe of corporate influence.
In a notable shift, he garnered support from left-leaning groups by making ambitious policy promises, including breaking utility power, implementing higher taxes on the rich and corporations, and adopting single-payer health care. This stance on single-payer health care marked a significant change for the former hedge fund manager, who had previously opposed it but made it a central component of his populist campaign.
The outcome was the culmination of a decades-long effort, which exceeded $1 billion, to leverage his personal fortune into political influence. This endeavor had previously been unsuccessful, with notable failures including his attempts to impeach Donald Trump and his own bid for the presidency. Despite the perceived opportunity created by former Rep. Eric Swalwell's campaign issues in April, Steyer consistently polled in the mid-teens. Meanwhile, much of the Democratic establishment rallied behind former Biden Cabinet Secretary Xavier Becerra, leaving Steyer's campaign struggling to gain traction.
According to Heather Grevenworth, executive director of the Voter Protection Project and former employee of the Steyer-founded NextGen PAC, a significant obstacle hindered the campaign's progress. "The billionaire ceiling was real," Grevenworth stated, suggesting that a substantial number of Democratic primary voters were unable to reconcile their differences and vote tactically.
Tom Steyer's campaign, which was built on a fervently progressive platform and backed by enormous spending, sparked intense opposition from powerful industries. However, despite his efforts to tap into populist sentiment and capitalize on widespread discontent with the billionaire class, Steyer failed to unite the left-leaning faction of the party. A fundamental paradox at the heart of his campaign ultimately proved insurmountable: his anti-corporate message was targeted at a demographic that was inherently skeptical of an older, white, male billionaire.
Steyer and his campaign team acknowledged and addressed this contradiction on multiple occasions, recognizing the need to reconcile their message with the perceived hypocrisy of a billionaire candidate advocating for anti-corporate policies.
In a bold move, the candidate wore a "Class Traitor" cap, consistently presenting himself as a billionaire who seeks to impose taxes on his fellow billionaires. He argued that his vast wealth has granted him the independence to challenge entrenched interests, including utilities and oil companies, as well as landlords and developers.
During an election night speech, Steyer declared, "They are unanimous in their hate of me, and I welcome their hatred." This message was consistently reinforced through advertisements, which encouraged voters to judge Steyer by his enemies.
According to campaign adviser Rebecca Katz, who was brought on board by Steyer after her work on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's insurgent campaign, the opposition from certain groups ultimately benefited Steyer's campaign. On the eve of the election, Katz told reporters that the efforts by "bad guys" to stop Tom Steyer had actually done his campaign a favor.
A prominent challenge for billionaire candidates has been garnering trust from the public, according to Katz, who noted that corporations have showcased the potential benefits of having a billionaire in office. However, this distrust proved to be a significant hurdle that could not be overcome, despite Steyer's substantial financial resources providing him with an unparalleled ability to connect with voters who are dissatisfied with their party's current state of affairs.
Steyer's wealth, which was both a considerable advantage and a major obstacle, ultimately hindered his progress in the race. A Steyer aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss the dynamics of the campaign, described the candidate's fortune as "our greatest asset and our greatest obstacle." The aide further emphasized that Steyer's wealth has been a double-edged sword, particularly among Democratic voters, serving as both a blessing and a curse.
Tom Steyer has a long history of involvement in California politics, during which he has utilized his wealth to significant effect. He has successfully passed ballot measures that increased taxes on corporations and tobacco, and has also established his political advocacy group, NextGen, as a major force in shaping environmental policy and promoting voter registration. Steyer's financial contributions to Democratic congressional contests have been substantial, with over $100 million invested in these efforts.
Despite his significant financial investments, previous campaigns have indicated that there may be limits to Steyer's appeal to voters. For instance, his involvement in a 2025 redistricting fight, which included featuring himself prominently in advertisements, was ultimately deemed ineffective by analysts. In his gubernatorial campaign, Steyer's strategy shifted in the final stages, with his closing advertisements focusing less on his personal biography and more on the interests he aimed to fight for and the people he pledged to support.
According to polling data, one characteristic that voters were most aware of when it came to him was his wealth. Many people are drawn to the idea of a billionaire using their resources for the betterment of society, noted Gil Duran, a political strategist who previously worked with him during his consideration of a US Senate run against Kamala Harris. Duran pointed out that this perception changes, however, when a billionaire decides to use their wealth to fund a political campaign.
The concerns of voters were also reflected in the questions posed by groups that the campaign was trying to court, explained Arnie Sowell, the head of NextGen Policy, who advised the campaign on policy matters. Sowell stated that these groups would often raise questions such as "He's a billionaire, why is he doing this?" and "What's this really all about?" in an attempt to understand his motivations and true intentions.
Tom Steyer's substantial net worth and the manner in which he acquired his wealth have posed significant challenges in his efforts to persuade left-leaning voters. This is particularly due to his past investments in private prisons, a decision he has publicly expressed regret over, yet was heavily criticized for in attack advertisements. According to Irene Kao, executive director of Courage California, a progressive group that supports Steyer, his background has created "a much higher hill" to climb in gaining the trust of progressive voters.
Kao noted that Steyer's reputation is burdened by what is perceived as "baggage" among progressives, which has hindered his ability to connect with this demographic. Furthermore, his campaign's extensive advertising efforts and decision to launch negative attacks against opponent Becerra likely alienated some voters. Despite these challenges, Steyer's campaign demonstrated glimpses of potential by securing the endorsement of various progressive groups and elected officials, including Representative Ro Khanna, as well as environmental organizations and certain unions. This support was largely garnered through Steyer's commitment to achieving ambitious policy objectives that have long been elusive for these groups.
Nurses viewed Tom Steyer's campaign as an opportunity to implement single-payer health care, while environmentalists saw it as a chance to break up utility monopolies. The California Teachers Association, which endorsed Steyer after another candidate's exit, was drawn to his support for raising corporate property taxes through a special election, a costly and contentious issue. Some observers felt that Steyer's approach, which involved promising various benefits to different groups, was overly calculated and resembled a giveaway, sparking debate about the sincerity of his convictions. This tactic, which aimed to secure a position in the progressive lane, was perceived by some political professionals as an attempt to offer something for everyone, leaving questions about where Steyer's genuine beliefs ended and his strategic calculations began.
A campaign consultant who has previously worked with Tom Steyer and was granted anonymity to provide a candid assessment, has suggested that Steyer's shift towards the progressive left is a calculated move to establish a strong support base. The consultant characterized Steyer as a hedge-fund executive who is willing to take any necessary steps to achieve his objectives.
However, Steyer's campaign manager, Katz, strongly disputed this assertion in an interview, stating that every aspect of the campaign was genuine and reflective of Steyer's true beliefs. Katz emphasized that Steyer did not instruct his team to remake his image, and that every policy position adopted by the campaign was a legitimate representation of Steyer's own views. According to Katz, Steyer was not rebranded as a progressive, but rather, he is a progressive at his core.
Steyer's decisive move to the left has had a dual effect, as it has not only resonated with some voters but also prompted a strong backlash from wealthy opponents who perceive him as a significant threat. These deep-pocketed adversaries have invested tens of millions of dollars in efforts to thwart Steyer's campaign, driven by their concern that his progressive agenda poses an existential threat to their interests.
Tom Steyer's Democratic opponents were unable to mount a substantial challenge against him due to a lack of resources, but an anti-Steyer political action committee launched a costly campaign worth tens of millions of dollars to portray him as a hypocrite who profited from the very industries he now criticizes.
A turning point in the campaign could have altered the course of events, particularly in the chaotic and anxious period that followed the collapse of a key candidate, which resulted in the race being left without a clear frontrunner and many prominent Sacramento figures finding themselves without a candidate to support. During this time, it seemed feasible that Steyer could capitalize on the situation and establish himself as a leading contender.
In an effort to alleviate tensions and present himself as a viable option, Steyer's team, along with his Democratic rivals, reached out to business groups that had previously supported the fallen candidate, in the hopes of fostering a more conciliatory atmosphere and showcasing his reasonableness.
According to a source familiar with the matter, who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, Tom Steyer's chances of success were contingent on the outcome of certain meetings. The source stated that if these meetings had been successful, Steyer would have had a viable opportunity. At the time, Steyer was reportedly feeling confident about his prospects, with the source describing him as feeling "inevitable."
However, the outcome of these meetings was reportedly not in Steyer's favor. The source claimed that Steyer performed poorly, adopting a hostile tone that alienated those he was meeting with and ultimately hardened their resolve to oppose him. This account has been disputed by a senior official in Steyer's organization, who characterized it as a false narrative that was beneficial to those seeking to undermine Steyer's efforts.
A significant shift in the dynamics of the race occurred in April, with the momentum appearing to swing in favor of Xavier Becerra.
A notable surge in the polls for the former Health and Human Services secretary sparked a self-reinforcing cycle, wherein the perception of Becerra as a frontrunner garnered increased support from interest groups and voters seeking a viable candidate, or a suitable alternative to Steyer. As the contest drew to a close, Steyer unleashed a significant financial campaign against Becerra, launching advertisements that portrayed his opponent as beholden to corporate interests and linked him to a corruption scandal involving a former senior aide. Despite not being implicated in the scandal, Becerra's allies responded swiftly and fiercely to Steyer's attack, issuing a cease-and-desist letter. The outcome has left Steyer in a familiar predicament, having expended hundreds of millions of dollars without achieving his desired result, and ultimately remaining outside the winner's circle.
According to Duran, the substantial investment of $215 million yielded some results, but ultimately fell short of achieving victory. Instead, Duran noted, the significant expenditure only managed to secure a narrow margin against a relatively unknown candidate from Sacramento and a former Fox News host who is often criticized for seeking attention.
During an election night event in San Francisco, Steyer addressed the crowd, as seen in a photograph taken by Noah Berger of the Associated Press. The event was held in the city where Steyer had hoped to garner significant support.
In Sacramento, California, Steyer's gubernatorial campaign made headlines as he positioned himself as a fierce opponent of moneyed powers, spending over $200 million in the process. Despite his substantial investment, California voters ultimately did not support his candidacy.
Steyer's record-breaking spending was largely fueled by his own wealth, as he attempted to succeed Gavin Newsom as governor. His campaign was marked by an extensive and pervasive advertising blitz, which aimed to introduce him to voters as a champion of integrity and a formidable foe of corporate influence.
In a notable shift, he garnered support from left-leaning groups by making ambitious policy promises, including breaking utility power, implementing higher taxes on the rich and corporations, and adopting single-payer health care. This stance on single-payer health care marked a significant change for the former hedge fund manager, who had previously opposed it but made it a central component of his populist campaign.
The outcome was the culmination of a decades-long effort, which exceeded $1 billion, to leverage his personal fortune into political influence. This endeavor had previously been unsuccessful, with notable failures including his attempts to impeach Donald Trump and his own bid for the presidency. Despite the perceived opportunity created by former Rep. Eric Swalwell's campaign issues in April, Steyer consistently polled in the mid-teens. Meanwhile, much of the Democratic establishment rallied behind former Biden Cabinet Secretary Xavier Becerra, leaving Steyer's campaign struggling to gain traction.
According to Heather Grevenworth, executive director of the Voter Protection Project and former employee of the Steyer-founded NextGen PAC, a significant obstacle hindered the campaign's progress. "The billionaire ceiling was real," Grevenworth stated, suggesting that a substantial number of Democratic primary voters were unable to reconcile their differences and vote tactically.
Tom Steyer's campaign, which was built on a fervently progressive platform and backed by enormous spending, sparked intense opposition from powerful industries. However, despite his efforts to tap into populist sentiment and capitalize on widespread discontent with the billionaire class, Steyer failed to unite the left-leaning faction of the party. A fundamental paradox at the heart of his campaign ultimately proved insurmountable: his anti-corporate message was targeted at a demographic that was inherently skeptical of an older, white, male billionaire.
Steyer and his campaign team acknowledged and addressed this contradiction on multiple occasions, recognizing the need to reconcile their message with the perceived hypocrisy of a billionaire candidate advocating for anti-corporate policies.
In a bold move, the candidate wore a "Class Traitor" cap, consistently presenting himself as a billionaire who seeks to impose taxes on his fellow billionaires. He argued that his vast wealth has granted him the independence to challenge entrenched interests, including utilities and oil companies, as well as landlords and developers.
During an election night speech, Steyer declared, "They are unanimous in their hate of me, and I welcome their hatred." This message was consistently reinforced through advertisements, which encouraged voters to judge Steyer by his enemies.
According to campaign adviser Rebecca Katz, who was brought on board by Steyer after her work on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's insurgent campaign, the opposition from certain groups ultimately benefited Steyer's campaign. On the eve of the election, Katz told reporters that the efforts by "bad guys" to stop Tom Steyer had actually done his campaign a favor.
A prominent challenge for billionaire candidates has been garnering trust from the public, according to Katz, who noted that corporations have showcased the potential benefits of having a billionaire in office. However, this distrust proved to be a significant hurdle that could not be overcome, despite Steyer's substantial financial resources providing him with an unparalleled ability to connect with voters who are dissatisfied with their party's current state of affairs.
Steyer's wealth, which was both a considerable advantage and a major obstacle, ultimately hindered his progress in the race. A Steyer aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss the dynamics of the campaign, described the candidate's fortune as "our greatest asset and our greatest obstacle." The aide further emphasized that Steyer's wealth has been a double-edged sword, particularly among Democratic voters, serving as both a blessing and a curse.
Tom Steyer has a long history of involvement in California politics, during which he has utilized his wealth to significant effect. He has successfully passed ballot measures that increased taxes on corporations and tobacco, and has also established his political advocacy group, NextGen, as a major force in shaping environmental policy and promoting voter registration. Steyer's financial contributions to Democratic congressional contests have been substantial, with over $100 million invested in these efforts.
Despite his significant financial investments, previous campaigns have indicated that there may be limits to Steyer's appeal to voters. For instance, his involvement in a 2025 redistricting fight, which included featuring himself prominently in advertisements, was ultimately deemed ineffective by analysts. In his gubernatorial campaign, Steyer's strategy shifted in the final stages, with his closing advertisements focusing less on his personal biography and more on the interests he aimed to fight for and the people he pledged to support.
According to polling data, one characteristic that voters were most aware of when it came to him was his wealth. Many people are drawn to the idea of a billionaire using their resources for the betterment of society, noted Gil Duran, a political strategist who previously worked with him during his consideration of a US Senate run against Kamala Harris. Duran pointed out that this perception changes, however, when a billionaire decides to use their wealth to fund a political campaign.
The concerns of voters were also reflected in the questions posed by groups that the campaign was trying to court, explained Arnie Sowell, the head of NextGen Policy, who advised the campaign on policy matters. Sowell stated that these groups would often raise questions such as "He's a billionaire, why is he doing this?" and "What's this really all about?" in an attempt to understand his motivations and true intentions.
Tom Steyer's substantial net worth and the manner in which he acquired his wealth have posed significant challenges in his efforts to persuade left-leaning voters. This is particularly due to his past investments in private prisons, a decision he has publicly expressed regret over, yet was heavily criticized for in attack advertisements. According to Irene Kao, executive director of Courage California, a progressive group that supports Steyer, his background has created "a much higher hill" to climb in gaining the trust of progressive voters.
Kao noted that Steyer's reputation is burdened by what is perceived as "baggage" among progressives, which has hindered his ability to connect with this demographic. Furthermore, his campaign's extensive advertising efforts and decision to launch negative attacks against opponent Becerra likely alienated some voters. Despite these challenges, Steyer's campaign demonstrated glimpses of potential by securing the endorsement of various progressive groups and elected officials, including Representative Ro Khanna, as well as environmental organizations and certain unions. This support was largely garnered through Steyer's commitment to achieving ambitious policy objectives that have long been elusive for these groups.
Nurses viewed Tom Steyer's campaign as an opportunity to implement single-payer health care, while environmentalists saw it as a chance to break up utility monopolies. The California Teachers Association, which endorsed Steyer after another candidate's exit, was drawn to his support for raising corporate property taxes through a special election, a costly and contentious issue. Some observers felt that Steyer's approach, which involved promising various benefits to different groups, was overly calculated and resembled a giveaway, sparking debate about the sincerity of his convictions. This tactic, which aimed to secure a position in the progressive lane, was perceived by some political professionals as an attempt to offer something for everyone, leaving questions about where Steyer's genuine beliefs ended and his strategic calculations began.
A campaign consultant who has previously worked with Tom Steyer and was granted anonymity to provide a candid assessment, has suggested that Steyer's shift towards the progressive left is a calculated move to establish a strong support base. The consultant characterized Steyer as a hedge-fund executive who is willing to take any necessary steps to achieve his objectives.
However, Steyer's campaign manager, Katz, strongly disputed this assertion in an interview, stating that every aspect of the campaign was genuine and reflective of Steyer's true beliefs. Katz emphasized that Steyer did not instruct his team to remake his image, and that every policy position adopted by the campaign was a legitimate representation of Steyer's own views. According to Katz, Steyer was not rebranded as a progressive, but rather, he is a progressive at his core.
Steyer's decisive move to the left has had a dual effect, as it has not only resonated with some voters but also prompted a strong backlash from wealthy opponents who perceive him as a significant threat. These deep-pocketed adversaries have invested tens of millions of dollars in efforts to thwart Steyer's campaign, driven by their concern that his progressive agenda poses an existential threat to their interests.
Tom Steyer's Democratic opponents were unable to mount a substantial challenge against him due to a lack of resources, but an anti-Steyer political action committee launched a costly campaign worth tens of millions of dollars to portray him as a hypocrite who profited from the very industries he now criticizes.
A turning point in the campaign could have altered the course of events, particularly in the chaotic and anxious period that followed the collapse of a key candidate, which resulted in the race being left without a clear frontrunner and many prominent Sacramento figures finding themselves without a candidate to support. During this time, it seemed feasible that Steyer could capitalize on the situation and establish himself as a leading contender.
In an effort to alleviate tensions and present himself as a viable option, Steyer's team, along with his Democratic rivals, reached out to business groups that had previously supported the fallen candidate, in the hopes of fostering a more conciliatory atmosphere and showcasing his reasonableness.
According to a source familiar with the matter, who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, Tom Steyer's chances of success were contingent on the outcome of certain meetings. The source stated that if these meetings had been successful, Steyer would have had a viable opportunity. At the time, Steyer was reportedly feeling confident about his prospects, with the source describing him as feeling "inevitable."
However, the outcome of these meetings was reportedly not in Steyer's favor. The source claimed that Steyer performed poorly, adopting a hostile tone that alienated those he was meeting with and ultimately hardened their resolve to oppose him. This account has been disputed by a senior official in Steyer's organization, who characterized it as a false narrative that was beneficial to those seeking to undermine Steyer's efforts.
A significant shift in the dynamics of the race occurred in April, with the momentum appearing to swing in favor of Xavier Becerra.
A notable surge in the polls for the former Health and Human Services secretary sparked a self-reinforcing cycle, wherein the perception of Becerra as a frontrunner garnered increased support from interest groups and voters seeking a viable candidate, or a suitable alternative to Steyer. As the contest drew to a close, Steyer unleashed a significant financial campaign against Becerra, launching advertisements that portrayed his opponent as beholden to corporate interests and linked him to a corruption scandal involving a former senior aide. Despite not being implicated in the scandal, Becerra's allies responded swiftly and fiercely to Steyer's attack, issuing a cease-and-desist letter. The outcome has left Steyer in a familiar predicament, having expended hundreds of millions of dollars without achieving his desired result, and ultimately remaining outside the winner's circle.
According to Duran, the substantial investment of $215 million yielded some results, but ultimately fell short of achieving victory. Instead, Duran noted, the significant expenditure only managed to secure a narrow margin against a relatively unknown candidate from Sacramento and a former Fox News host who is often criticized for seeking attention.
#News, #USA