The California governor’s race is heating up, and we’re seeing an absolutely wild amount of money pouring into it, more than even what we saw in the recent Kentucky primary. Independent committees, often called IEs, have already raked in a record-shattering $79.6 million from corporations, labor unions, tech titans, Native American tribes, and other special interests, the Los Angeles Times reported. This is all happening ahead of the June 2 primary, and honestly, it’s a huge shift in how these races usually play out.
Veteran GOP strategist Martin Wilson, who has been involved in every California gubernatorial contest since way back in 1978, put it perfectly. He said, “This is the first time I’ve ever seen IEs [or independent expenditures] have this kind of an impact on a governor’s race.” He described it as “totally unprecedented,” and I’ve got to agree, it’s pretty wild to watch.
Now, you might be wondering why these committees are so important. Well, many of the biggest donors have significant business interests in front of the state’s next governor and state agencies. They’re hoping to either boost a candidate who aligns with their political priorities or effectively undercut those who oppose them.
This massive surge in outside spending isn’t new, but it has definitely accelerated
Officially, election laws are pretty clear: independent expenditure committees are barred from communicating or coordinating with actual campaigns. This setup lets candidates claim they have absolutely no control over the money flowing into these outside groups. Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA, noted that “It has been a steady increase in the amount of money going to outside groups.”
This massive surge in outside spending isn’t new, but it has definitely accelerated. It really started growing exponentially after a voter-approved 2000 California ballot measure limited how much donors could contribute directly to candidates. For the current election, that direct contribution limit is $78,400 for both the primary and general election in the governor’s race. But here’s the kicker: donors can contribute unlimited amounts to these outside groups.
This practice, while already legal in California, blew up even more across the nation after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. That ruling essentially said limits on independent political spending by corporations, unions, and other entities violated First Amendment free speech protections.
We’ve seen big IE spending before, of course. In 2010, independent expenditure groups set a record in California by spending about $25 million supporting then-gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown. That money, largely from unions, was poured in after the primary and was considered crucial in stalling self-funding Republican billionaire Meg Whitman’s campaign.
Brown ultimately won that race by a whopping 13 percentage points. Then, in the 2018 gubernatorial primary, records were broken again, with more than $26 million in outside spending. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was the biggest beneficiary, with charter school backers spending nearly $16 million on unsuccessful efforts to boost his campaign. So, while the scale is new, the tactic isn’t.
One of the big advantages outside groups have, beyond their enormous financial power, is their ability to unleash highly provocative and adversarial attacks. The best part for the candidate they support? They don’t get blamed for the often controversial messaging. Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, summed it up perfectly: “IEs are as free to go as negative as they want without that negativity boomeranging back to hurt the candidate.” It’s a pretty sweet deal for campaigns looking to get aggressive without getting their hands dirty.
While communication between candidate campaigns and independent committees is technically forbidden, these rules are pretty commonly circumvented using methods that are legal but, let’s just say, obvious. One method, called “red boxing,” was even employed by Xavier Becerra earlier this year.
It literally involves putting messages inside red-lined boxes on candidate websites that their campaign strategists would love to see outside groups highlight. Rick Hasen noted, “There are technical rules that prevent certain types of communication, but it’s easy enough to communicate in public and be on the same page on messaging.”
The major donors across the board in this 2026 campaign include a who’s who of powerful players: the California Chamber of Commerce, PG&E, the California Assn. of Realtors, the Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition PAC, the Pechanga Band of Indians, the California Nurses Assn., and corporations and leaders or founders of companies such as Meta, Google, and Uber.
“Californians for the People,” an outside committee that has spent nearly $32.3 million opposing Steyer, is the most well-funded independent expenditure committee this year. Among its largest donors is JOBSPAC, a group sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, which has donated nearly $11.8 million to the effort. It’s clear that this race is a high-stakes game, and money, particularly outside money, is playing a bigger role than ever before.
Published: May 26, 2026 06:15 pm