California’s political landscape is shifting dramatically with the state’s wealthiest residents pouring money into numerous political action committees to move the state rightward.

At the end of last year, the Astroturf Network began turning its attention from just San Francisco and toward the whole state. To date, their success has been limited. Tech founder Ethan Agarwal’s challenge to incumbent Ro Khanna in California’s 17th congressional district and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan’s gubernatorial campaign drew the energy and capital of the Network’s finest. Mahan’s campaign pulled in more than $13 million in direct contributions and more than $21 million from independent expenditure committees. 

Agarwal raised over $676,000 from January to mid May in his congressional bid. Agarwal’s short-lived and underwhelming gubernatorial campaign drew in more than $253,000 in December of last year. Both campaigns were supported to the hilt by Silicon Valley’s biggest names and both ended in resounding defeats: Mahan, for his part, failed to earn 4% of the vote. Agarwal finished fourth, behind two Republicans.  

However, two PACs created in early 2026 and with extensive ties to Silicon Valley have been remarkably successful. Their target has been California’s state legislature: Eleven of twelve of their candidates for seats in the Assembly or State Senate won their primaries and will appear on the November ballot. In contrast to Mahan and Agarwal, these successful candidates were all local politicians unconnected to tech. Most of them are based in smaller Southern California municipalities around Anaheim and parts of East LA.

Losers

The biggest losers have been the campaigns associated with moneyed tech interests, namely Mahan’s bid for governor and Agarwal’s attempt to unseat Ro Khanna. 

Agarwal, a tech founder and political outsider, launched an aborted bid for governor before being steered toward a more modest goal. Shortly after announcing his bid for the 17th district, the "fiercely pro-capitalism” Agarwal was rubbing shoulders with Silicon Valley oligarchs at the Atherton home of Sacramento Kings owner Vivek Randive. It was at the same time Mahan was being promoted as a potential gubernatorial candidate.

Both Agarwal and Mahan were notable opponents of the Billionaire Tax. Opposition to the tax has been an organizing catalyst for the state’s richest businessmen.

Building a Better California — a dark money political pressure organization with a connected political action committee — took a measured approach, planning for a legal challenge should the tax pass. It received $25 million from Google co-founder Sergey Brin to put forward multiple ballot measures to invalidate the wealth tax.

For its part, Golden State Promise — a political action committee funded by crypto-goniff Chris Larsen and the California Business Roundtable and started by consultants from the crypto PAC Fairshake — promised to raise $30 million in its attempt to keep the Billionaire Tax off the ballot. It fell far short, raising just $10 million all from Larsen. 

Tech’s unpopularity with the broader electorate has posed significant challenges in statewide races. 

On the contrary, the successful strategy in LA has taken a markedly different approach. In local races, the tech-backed PACs have allied with candidates with deep roots in the community and obfuscated their connection to the tech industry. Also, the spending goes further: A $1 million expenditure in a gubernatorial campaign is a drop in the bucket. On a local level, it makes waves. 

Winners 

California Leads and Grow California were the most successful tech-backed political pressure organizations in the last election cycle. The former is backed by over $10 million from Google and Meta, while the latter is the brainchild of Chris Larsen and third-generation venture capitalist Tim Draper, the purpose of which they describe as being a "counterforce" to organized labor.

Grow California has claimed that it received $40 million from "independent expenditures committees and nonprofit entities,” according to the New York Times though the number has yet to be verified. Larsen told the Times that he intends to contribute $30 million of his own money and for the organization to be involved for multiple election cycles. 

Shaudi Fulp, a lobbyist who runs Grow California, helped launch another dark money political group, Garry’s List in February. The 501(c)4 is described as being part-political action committee part-media group, run by its namesake, the wealthy conservative tech provocateur Garry Tan. The goal of the organization is to bring more of Tan’s pro-carceral, pro-tech and anti-regulatory politics to San Francisco and the state writ large.   

California Leads supported several candidates mostly in California assembly races, with six-figure donations. Mark Pulido, mayor pro tempore Cerritos, received more than $1.25 million for his state assembly campaign. Pulido’s campaign focused on education, affordable housing and public safety. David Penaloza, mayor pro tem in Santa Ana, pulled in more than $820,000 from California Leads for his state assembly campaign. Similar to Pulido, Penaloza focused on affordable housing for the middle class, public investment in job training and lowering the state’s cost of living. Andrae Gonzales, a Bakersfield city councilman, drew more than $1.66 million for his state assembly campaign. Like the aforementioned candidates, Gonzalez’s candidacy focused on building housing for first time home buyers, lowering barriers to education and addressing the rising cost of living. 

Grow California’s support for Pulido included more than $1 million in mid-May solely for digital ads. Grow also provided financial support for Ayanna Davis in her campaign for the 65th assembly seat in LA’s South Bay. Penaloza additionally collected multiple low six-figure contributions for ads from Grow California. Grow California’s ads clearly had high production value, featuring costly voiceover and editing, in comparison to more grassroots-funded competitors.

While California Leads mostly poured money into candidate coffers, Grow California invested heavily on attack ads opposing several Southern California candidates. Among them were Jessie Lopez, a Santa Ana city councilwoman who ran for an assembly seat and lost by less than 1,000 votes. In total, Grow spent more than $1.1 million on digital or television ads opposing Lopez. Likewise, Grow California spent more than $1.4 million on ads opposing the aforementioned southern California assembly candidate Ada Briceño. Both Lopez and Briceño are labor organizers who ran campaigns calling for regulating AI. 

Both Grow California and California Leads’ operations were instructed by high-level data and polling. Their voter outreach took pains to avoid mentioning the tech industry, especially artificial intelligence. They promoted local politicians already familiar to voters. Ads supporting Gonzales, paid for by California Leads, featured testimonials from a union electrician and other working class would-be voters. Similarly, the Pulido ads, which were paid for directly by Grow California, focused on working class testimonials and a connection to the local community, while avoiding tech or AI. 

The expansion of tech elite-backed astroturf organizations from the Bay Area to statewide has shown their ability to expand and adapt. Finding local candidates with strong ties to their communities — and giving them significant financial backing — have allowed these astroturf organizations to succeed. Indeed, dually obscuring those would-be elected officials from their tech industry backers have also contributed significantly to those wins.