CalMatters reported more than $128 million in spending on California Assembly and Senate races through October 29, 2026. Its analysis attributed at least 20% of contributions to outside groups spending on those races to technology interests. The first figure is total spending across the legislative races; the second is a share of contributions to a particular kind of group, not tech’s share of all campaign spending.
What the spending figures count
The $128 million covers California Assembly and Senate races, not every campaign or ballot measure in the state. CalMatters reported $74.2 million in spending on those legislative races in 2022 and nearly $100 million in 2024. Its separate technology estimate concerns contributions to outside groups active in the races. Google, Meta, Uber and individual tech investors were among the technology interests involved.
That distinction matters because a large total across races and an industry’s share of funding for outside groups measure different things. Neither figure alone describes how much a particular company spent on a candidate.
How independent expenditures differ from candidate donations
An independent expenditure is campaign spending outside a candidate’s own fundraising, such as advertising or direct mail. CalMatters reported that these expenditures are not subject to state limits on donations to candidates, and that their advertising cannot be coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. The outlet stated that an individual could contribute up to $5,900 per election to a California legislative candidate.
The two channels therefore have different rules and should not be treated as interchangeable: one is an individual contribution to a candidate, the other is outside spending on campaign activity.
Where tech-backed spending appeared in legislative races
CalMatters reported that two committees funded largely by Google and Meta accounted for more than 90% of independent expenditures supporting Andrae Gonzales and 63% of those supporting Annalisa Perea. In the race involving Ana Palacio, nearly $800,000 was spent opposing her, with technology interests accounting for more than 40% of that opposition spending.
Meta’s committee, Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across (META) California, spent $1.3 million supporting Scott Sakakihara, according to CalMatters. These figures describe spending in particular races and the share attributed to specified committees or interests.
The debate over regulation and political influence
Technology-industry advocates framed political spending as a response to legislation aimed at new industries. Robert Singleton, director of policy and public affairs at Chamber of Progress, argued that new technologies need room to develop and warned that overregulation could affect California’s competitiveness, jobs and tax revenue.
Critics focused on the influence that large contributions and outside spending could give the industry. California Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal said he viewed the spending as an effort to build influence in the Legislature. Those are competing arguments about the purpose and consequences of campaign spending.
California’s primary results were mixed
ABC7 News Bay Area reported that Matt Mahan finished sixth in the gubernatorial primary, while Ro Khanna won his primary with more than 62% of the vote. CalMatters reported that 11 of 12 GROW California candidates advanced to the general election. These outcomes involved different races and candidates.
Proposition 40 spending covered a separate campaign
Building a Better California’s ballot-measure activity is a separate spending pool from Assembly and Senate races. LA Public Press reported, using records through October 20, that the group had raised more than $333 million overall. It reported $118.5 million for a committee opposing Proposition 40 and $186 million supporting Propositions 41 and 42.
Those ballot-measure allocations do not belong in the $128 million legislative-race total. California’s general election was scheduled for November 3, 2026.
