This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Campaign donations are both a measure of popular support and a sign of which candidates special interests believe they can influence. CalMatters analyzed campaign finance data in the California governor’s race. Here are five takeaways on where the money is coming from and where it’s going.

Outside money is shattering records

It’s a record-breaking election when it comes to spending by corporations and special interest groups trying to influence who becomes the next governor. 

Outside groups, which unlike candidates can receive unlimited donations, reported spending $79 million so far — more than double the amount spent through the November 2018 general election when Gavin Newsom won his first term. 

Billionaire Tom Steyer is the biggest target: A political spending committee called California Is Not For Sale, funded by the state Realtors association, the California Chamber of Commerce, Pacific Gas & Electric and the state’s electrical workers’ union poured $32 million into ads opposing him. 

Steyer has vowed to lower electricity bills by challenging PG&E’s monopoly in much of Northern California. He’s also promised to pursue a ballot measure that would raise revenue for public services by requiring more accurate property tax assessments on business properties, a move that could upend the commercial real estate market. 

Some of the same groups spending against Steyer are running ads for Xavier Becerra. Those groups — along with organizations representing doctors, contractors and several labor unions — have spent $13 million through PACs to boost Becerra. 

Chevron, McDonald’s, dialysis giant DaVita and one of the state’s largest oil drillers, California Resources Corp., are funding one of the largest pro-Becerra groups, with each of them contributing $500,000. Meta and AirBnB chipped in about $1 million each and health insurance corporation Centene, which runs California-based HealthNet, put in $100,000.

Steyer is reveling in the spending against him, pointing to it as proof he’d stand up to utilities and big business. A climate activist, Steyer has highlighted Becerra’s support from Chevron. 

The progressive unions California Nurses Association and United Domestic Workers have spent a comparatively modest $1.4 million on mailers and digital media boosting Steyer. Outside groups have also spent $1.8 million opposing Republican frontrunner Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host and British political strategist.

Mahan fizzles out

The second-highest outside spending went to boost Mahan, the San Jose mayor and moderate Democrat who entered the race late to much fanfare from Silicon Valley.

California’s tech billionaires urged Mahan to run and backed him with millions in donations and two independent spending committees. They were enamored with his platform of government efficiency and opposition to new taxes — positions that would shield them from the Legislature’s push to regulate tech and raise taxes on the wealthy.

Donors included venture capitalists Michael Moritz and Brian Singerman, DoorDash CEO Tony Xu, Intuit founder Scott Cook, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and Los Angeles developer and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso.

The committees spent nearly $22 million on ads supporting Mahan, significantly more than the $9 million his campaign has spent. But the money wasn’t enough to overcome his significant disadvantage in name recognition as the first-term mayor of a city that doesn’t get much attention. Strategists told the committees’ backers they needed at least $45 million to make a difference. 

One of the PACs, California Back to Basics, last week returned $1 million from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings; Hastings cryptically posted on X that he hadn’t asked for the money back. The refund was an acknowledgement that the committee hadn’t succeeded in raking in a final $10 to $15 million the billionaire backers hoped to raise in the last weeks of the campaign, committee spokesperson Matt Rodriguez said.

Steyer spending breaking its own records

Yet despite his opponents’ deep-pocketed donors, no one has matched the $213 million Steyer has spent on his own campaign, allowing him to blanket the airwaves with ads, pay influencers to post videos with him and send billboard trucks to drive around gas stations highlighting Becerra’s Chevron support. 

That makes his the most expensive primary campaign in California gubernatorial history, exceeding that of former eBay executive Meg Whitman, a Republican who spent about $94 million in the June 2010 primary — about $142 million in today’s dollars — spending tens of millions more before losing to Jerry Brown in the general election.

California gubernatorial candidates during a debate in San Francisco on May 14, 2026.Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo

Swalwell donors flocked to Becerra

DaVita, the California Medical Association and the California Professional Firefighters Association all supported former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s gubernatorial bid before he dropped out over sexual assault allegations. 

They were among the biggest Swalwell backers to quickly switch to Becerra, who has enjoyed surging support from social media and the Democratic establishment. 

Small donors made a similar leap. The CalMatters analysis found that after Swalwell dropped out, more than 500 of his campaign donors went on to contribute to Becerra’s campaign. No other candidate received that much support from former Swalwell donors. 

Swalwell, who has also since resigned from Congress, continues to use his gubernatorial campaign to pay more than $313,000 to attorney Sara Azari, who is defending him against the allegations. He has also refunded about $250,000 to nearly 50 donors.

Republican Steve Hilton had the most donors

The Republican frontrunner amassed the highest number of campaign donors in the race: more than 20,000. Nearly a quarter of them live outside California. 

The former Fox News host seeks to slash state environmental regulations, build housing on undeveloped suburban land and cut income taxes for the middle class. He received a slight uptick in donations after President Donald Trump endorsed him on April 6. 

Katie Porter, the Democratic former congressmember from Orange County and consumer protection attorney, had the second-highest number of donors, with more than 15,000. 

She also has the highest share of donors outside California, reflecting her relative national fame from her headline-grabbing time grilling corporate CEOs in Congress. 

But fundraising stalled for the onetime progressive darling, who touts her reliance on grassroots donors and refusal to take corporate contributions. From April 18 through May 19 she brought in less money than Mahan. 

This story was originally published by EdSource. Sign up for their daily newsletter.

Top Takeaways

• The cost of health benefits has surged nearly 500% since 2013-14, outpacing school funding growth.
• Teachers’ share of their healthcare premiums has reached $1,600 a month in some cases, fueling labor battles.
• California school districts spent 8% of their per-student funding on health benefits last school year.

Twin Rivers Unified School District teachers in Sacramento spent 12 days on strike in March, in part, because healthcare premiums for some teachers and their families had reached $1,600 a month — a growing burden now fueling labor battles in school districts across California.

Little Lake City teachers in Sante Fe Springs, Norwalk and Downey walked out of their classrooms for 10 days; Natomas Unified teachers in Sacramento for seven days; and Dublin Unified, West Contra Costa Unified and San Francisco Unified teachers for four days this school year.

All six unions ended their strikes with health coverage victories. Other unions reached agreements with their districts on improved health benefits at the bargaining table; some are still trying.

As school districts grapple with declining enrollment, expiring federal aid and rising pension costs, healthcare premiums have become one of the most contentious issues in labor negotiations. Teachers say escalating out-of-pocket costs are swallowing salary gains, while district leaders say schools can’t continue to shoulder the entire cost of employee health benefits without having to cut elsewhere.

Teachers in Modesto City Schools have been negotiating a contract with their district since the fall. The sticking point: health benefits. Teachers would like the district to pay more toward rising health benefit costs, which some of them say are now more than their mortgages, according to the Modesto Bee.

The cost of health and welfare benefits has surged nearly 500% since 2013-14, far outpacing school funding growth, according to School Services Inc., a California education consulting firm.

During the 2024-25 school year, California school districts, on average, spent 8% of their average daily attendance funding on health and welfare benefits for school employees, according to a report released recently as part of the Getting Down to Facts III collection of education research.

Health premiums outpace salary gains

The average healthcare premium for a public school employee increased 14%, while teacher salaries increased by 10% between 2018 and 2022, according to a National Council on Teacher Quality study.

Since then, insurance rates have continued to increase at a steady pace.

A July 2025 survey of nearly 2,000 California teachers found that 69% said that high, out-of-pocket costs for often inadequate healthcare benefits were eating into their paychecks.

“Health insurance premiums are rising faster than teachers’ salaries are increasing, and so this is, of course, making it harder for teachers to be able to afford to stay in the profession,” said Heather Peske, president of NCTQ.

The popular perception is that California public school teachers have generous healthcare benefits, but the reality is that some teachers pay as much as $1,600 per month in out-of-pocket costs, said California Teachers Association President David Goldberg.

Teachers feel that budgets “have basically been balanced on their backs for years,” Goldberg said during an EdSource Roundtable in February. “About a third of the association’s members report that they’re living paycheck to paycheck and are even delaying needed healthcare.”

Paul Bruno, assistant professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, says teacher salaries have been mostly flat over the last 20 years as unions and school districts have prioritized health benefits during contract negotiations.

“Teacher compensation has gone up pretty substantially, it’s just not in salary,” said Bruno, lead author of “District Dollars 3: Recent Patterns in California School District Finances, Trends in Teacher Compensation, and Within-District, Between-School Spending.”

Higher rates are impacting district budgets

California school districts are also struggling financially. They have lost average daily attendance funding due to declining enrollment, and federal Covid dollars. At the same time, districts are paying more for pensions, healthcare, supplies and special education.

Between the 2004-05 and 2024-25 school years, healthcare costs for California districts increased 46%, or $6,345 per teacher, according to Bruno’s research. Medical benefit costs increased 52% to $18,839 per teacher, while the cost of dental and vision plans dropped slightly.

Although the cost of health benefits has increased in all industries at a faster rate than inflation most years, schools are harder hit because they generally are responsible for a larger share of their employees’ benefit costs than most other industries, according to the report.

The pain is not spread equally

Health benefits, which are collectively bargained between local districts and their teachers unions, vary greatly across the state.

About half of the state’s districts that reported data to the state during the 2024-25 school year paid between 70% and 90% of their teachers’ health benefits; about 13% of the districts paid the entire cost, according to a California Teachers Association analysis of benefits data submitted to the state by 783 school districts.

It is unclear how many California districts, if any, require teachers to pay the full cost of the insurance.

Agreeing to pay 100% of health benefits can put a district in the position of shouldering the entire cost of increases, Bruno said. It also removes incentives for employees to select less expensive health plans, he said.

Kern County is the gold standard

Kern County schools are the most generous to their teachers in terms of health benefits, with 18 of the 37 districts that reported data to the California Department of Education paying 100% of their teachers’ health premiums. Another 15 of the county’s districts reported paying between 90% and 99.58% of teachers’ health benefits.

“Not only do we have our benefits 100% paid for, we have extremely good benefits. Like we’re talking gold plan PPO benefits,” said Megan Harwell, president of the Kern County Education Association, the union for the county Office of Education.

Kern County school districts have paid a majority of teachers’ health benefits for as long as Harwell, a special education teacher, can remember. But the issue still comes up annually during contract negotiations because of rising costs, she said.

“So, it’s never been a given,” Harwell said. “It’s always been something we’ve fought very hard for.”

This year, the Kern County Office of Education paid approximately $1,700 a month for health benefits for each of their teachers and their families, Harwell said. Next year, the cost is expected to be about $2,000.

Harwell said Kern County teachers are often shocked to hear that teachers in other school districts pay between $500 and $1,700 a month for their family’s health benefits.

With healthcare costs soaring, holding the line on health insurance premiums should be a priority for teachers, even if it means accepting a smaller pay increase, Harwell said.

“Because if you open that floodgate, then when does it stop? Like, it’s $50 now, but next year it’s going to be $100, then $200, then $300 and then whatever we get in COLA (cost-of-living adjustment) will be eaten up by the amount of money we’re paying for our benefits,” she said.

Districts could share costs

Bruno said the share of health insurance costs covered by school districts declined during the early 2000s. The trend leveled off around 2012, however, as California increased state funding for education. Since then, school districts have consistently covered about 85% of employee health benefit costs, he said.

But, this school year some districts have asked teachers to pay more for their health insurance.

Peske said shifting more healthcare costs onto teachers could make it harder for districts to recruit and retain teachers, especially if benefits become less competitive. Instead, she said, district leaders should negotiate for lower-cost insurance plans, seek better rates from providers or partner with other districts to buy insurance at lower prices. The state could also help school districts improve their rates, she added.

“States are in a particularly unique and favorable position to negotiate better health insurance rates for their employees,” Peske said. “So, for example, the state of North Carolina provides state-level health insurance. So, they’re able to negotiate a plan with much better rates since they have many more employees, obviously, than a single district does.”

Peske acknowledges that a statewide program could be difficult in California, where each district has its own collective bargaining agreement with its teachers.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Two of California’s largest courts are testing an AI tool that can draft orders and produce research memos. 

Judges so far are using it primarily for civil cases, but documents obtained by CalMatters indicate the possibility of expanded applications in criminal cases, where people’s freedom and access to justice are on the line. 

The Los Angeles County Superior Court began a pilot program in February to test a tool created by the company Learned Hand. Other courts may follow, according to Learned Hand founder and chief executive officer Shlomo Klapper.

Learned Hand uses a combination of language models from Anthropic, OpenAI and Google to act as an AI clerk for judges. The company says it tests for bias and accuracy, but it has not yet published results. 

In Riverside County, which has a $10,000 agreement with the company to test the program, civil and probate attorneys are primarily using the tool to draft research memos that help judges reach their decisions. It’s typical for research attorneys to assist judges as they review cases.  

Los Angeles County Superior Court has a roughly $314,000 contract that includes a roadmap to test the tool’s use in criminal, family and probate divisions. Officials would not describe in detail to CalMatters the criteria they’re using to evaluate whether use of the tool can safely expand to criminal and family courts, where the stakes are often much higher than in civil cases. 

One judge who spoke to CalMatters on condition of anonymity due to judicial rules of conduct was alarmed when their colleagues at a recent luncheon said the technology could be used one day to evaluate appeals from people who believe their conviction or sentence was tainted by racial bias. California courts are handling a wave of those claims after lawmakers passed the Racial Justice Act in 2020. 

“I think it is outrageous,” said the Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. “AI cannot and never will be able to replace human judgment in evaluating complex social dynamics. Ultimately, that will erode the public’s confidence in the competence and fairness of the judiciary.”

A majority of California’s superior courts now have generative AI use policies, according to documents obtained by CalMatters via public records requests, which they were required to create by the state Judicial Council before using the technology. Roughly a dozen of the 51 courts that have responded to CalMatters’ requests said they are using AI-powered tools from LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, and Microsoft’s Copilot.

Use of AI in courts has been controversial because of the propensity of AI models to cite falsehoods and to produce sycophantic text. Models from major companies like Google and Anthropic can reduce critical thinking and brain activity, according to a 2025 MIT study.

Language model hallucinations have already made it into the judicial system. Researcher Damien Charlotin has documented hundreds of instances of litigants, lawyers, and judges making mistakes when using AI to do their jobs including nearly 90 cases in state or federal courts based in California since August 2024. 

Last fall, a Los Angeles-based lawyer received a historic $10,000 fine for citing cases that don’t exist, and earlier this month the Sacramento Bee reported that use of AI led to errors in four cases handled by prosecutors in Nevada County. Most of these cases involve lawyers or people who are representing themselves in court, but UCLA Law School professors predict that more judges will make AI-fueled mistakes in the future. In recent months, the U.S. Senate investigated federal judges in Mississippi and New Jersey for drafting decisions with generative AI that had serious factual errors. 

Klapper, who previously worked as a clerk for a federal appeals court and for surveillance technology company Palantir, said the judiciary needs AI in order to reduce backlogs and increase efficiency.

“Could we hire more people?” he told CalMatters. “Maybe, but it’s not going to keep pace with the exponential increase that’s coming, nor is it going to be able to adequately solve the crisis of today. I think the only solution is to give every single judge and staff attorney their own AI clerk.” 

Klapper said he’s aiming to combine the best parts of what human judges can do with the best parts of what machines bring to bear. 

“I’m not saying all machines aren’t biased,” he said. “I’m not saying my machine isn’t even biased. I’m saying we can test it and people have tested it. And that is the benefit over humans.” 

Generative AI use policies for the Los Angeles and Riverside County superior courts only require disclosure if a motion, decision, or other document is written entirely with generative AI. 

Both courts refused to say whether plaintiffs are aware that the tool is being tested on their cases. In a statement to CalMatters, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Superior Court said testing is done on motions that have already been decided, separate from live case environments. However, the contract allows for testing on live cases.

“It is important to note that even with successful evaluation and thorough testing, the Court remains several months, if not years, away from implementing this type of tool,” said the spokesperson. 

The contract allows the tool to be used for two critical motions in the criminal division: A motion to suppress, which is designed to determine what type of evidence the prosecution is allowed to present at trial, and motions for post conviction relief, which are filed by people who have already been convicted and want another shot at freedom. 

That’s the “greatest concern” for Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman. When he reviewed the contract, he referred to the motions as “two incredibly important motions in the criminal justice system.”

“When you’re dealing with someone’s liberty — as opposed to in the civil setting, which is everything other than liberty — the stakes couldn’t be higher,” said Hochman. “I don’t want to take the chance, particularly in a criminal case, that AI happens to get it wrong. And now someone’s constitutional rights have been infringed. Someone has gone to prison who shouldn’t have, or on the flip side, that somehow someone gets off.”

‘An extremely perilous road’

In Los Angeles, some judges first heard about the new Learned Hand contract during a March presentation by Superior Court Judges Yvette Verastegui and Olivia Rosales. They lead the criminal branch and visit courthouses throughout the county as part of an annual roadshow, where they update judges on court operations, discuss workload and field questions. During a luncheon, Verastegui and Rosales said the tool could be used to assist with Racial Justice Act petitions in the future. 

California’s Racial Justice Act allows people to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence that they believe was based upon racial bias. Petitions are filed directly to the court from people in state prison. If a case is found to have merit, the process includes appointing legal counsel, filing briefs and setting evidentiary hearings before a judge would decide whether to grant the petition. 

That process could look different with a tool like Learned Hand. Verastegui and Rosales explained that, following an incarcerated person’s petition, the tool could generate tentative decisions for judges to consider in denying or advancing cases to the next stages, according to one judge who attended the luncheon. 

“The concern, of course, that I have is that the courts will utilize that as a reference point and then get stuck to that initial analysis,” said the judge. “It’s an extremely perilous road to go down. Putting aside the inaccuracy, which will be a significant concern, it dehumanizes the whole process. It does not treat people as individuals with lived experiences. It essentially reimposes a one-size-fits-all style of justice.”

A second Los Angeles Superior Court judge who spoke with CalMatters on the condition of anonymity remembered the presentation and said they would not trust nor use the tool to summarize a Racial Justice Act petition.

AI can replicate or intensify patterns contained in the data used to make a model, including human biases. Large language models have a history of demonstrating race and gender bias, an analysis of predictive policing tech used by LAPD found racial bias, and an analysis of the risk assessment algorithm COMPAS found that it is more likely to label Black people as at risk of committing crimes after incarceration than white people with a similar record. 

Public defenders who spoke with CalMatters echoed those concerns. 

Elizabeth Lashley-Haynes, a deputy public defender at the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, said it would be “highly problematic and bordering on unethical” for a judge to use the tool to review Racial Justice Act petitions, which she described as “incredibly nuanced.”

“They’re like nothing else in the legal system that has ever really been done,” said Lashley-Haynes, who specializes in Racial Justice Act cases. “Words that are used in these cases that have racial undertones or racial meanings are way beyond the realm of anything that artificial intelligence could do.”

In interviews with CalMatters, Klapper and Los Angeles County Superior Court Executive Officer, David Slayton, denied that the court has any plans to use the tool for Racial Justice Act petitions. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Superior Court later confirmed in an email to CalMatters that the contract permits the tool to be used in such a way “but that possibility has not commenced in any way.” 

Klapper said if they were to build out a Racial Justice Act module, the tool would need to be evaluated for bias and co-developed with the court. 

“The timing very fortuitous, right?” he said. “It’s a very fraught decision, I’m not going to lie…extremely high stakes — a scenario where I understand people might be very concerned. Especially with criminal, I have even more hesitancy, even more guardrails than normal about, because there are liberty interests at stake.”

Extending beyond civil cases

In Los Angeles, six superior court judges and their research attorneys are primarily using the Learned Hand tool to conduct research, summarize motions and assist in drafting tentative rulings, according to Slayton. He says the tool won’t move beyond the civil division “until the court leadership is comfortable.” 

“The court is being very deliberate and careful about how we use technology like this,” he said. “So until we evaluate it and determine that it is effective in those areas, we will not extend it to other areas.” 

Los Angeles County Superior Court’s Hollywood Courthouse, in Los Angeles, on March 12, 2025.Jules Hotz/CalMatters

The tool will be evaluated on a quarterly basis to determine its future application, Slayton said, but he did not specify what kind of evaluation that entails. In an email to CalMatters, a spokesperson later said that Learned Hand is evaluated “against the same substantive expectations applied to law clerks and research attorneys: accurate legal research, sound analysis, neutral and judge-ready writing, and reliable work product that supports judicial decision-making.”

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Samantha Jessner, who chairs the Judicial Technology Advisory Committee, said she was unaware of the possibility that the tool could eventually be used outside of the civil division until recently. Judges are not privy to contract negotiations due to certain ethical limitations, she said. 

“I think we have a duty and obligation to explore whether or not there is a place for artificial intelligence in what we do as a judicial branch and that’s exactly what this pilot is intended to afford us the opportunity to do,” said Jessner.

Riverside County Superior Court signed an agreement with Learned Hand in February. In emails obtained by CalMatters, Klapper proposed to two Riverside County Superior Court executives, Jason Galkin and Sarah Hodgson, that the court use the tool for a common civil court motion and “then expand quickly once we earn our stripes.” He suggested that Hodgson assemble a list of motions and workflows “that generate the most pain,” citing examples that included the Racial Justice Act. 

Roughly two weeks later, Hodgson described the most laborious motions “that want to drive us into retirement,” including discovery motions and attorney fee motions. For criminal cases, the court suggested that Klapper focus on “things with the largest paper records,” citing death penalty habeas petitions and parole revocation.

Since the pilot started, seven civil and probate attorneys have been granted access to the tool. Galkin, the chief executive officer of the Riverside County Superior Court, said they are “kicking the tires on the product” to see what tasks it can do. The tool is not being used to draft tentative rulings, he said. 

“We don’t even know if expansion is likely so there is no set criteria for what expansion might look like or thresholds for that because right now, the core question is: Does this help staff and does it advance what they’re trying to do in their roles?” said Galkin.

As testing is underway, attorneys like Hochman say that use of AI is inevitable, but would be better suited for low-level, repetitive and routine tasks.

“It’s the analysis of the case itself, coupled with the conclusions that will be reached, that I’m very hesitant to trust AI at this point — in large part, because I don’t know all of the inputs that AI is using to make its decision. The only thing I’m 100% sure of is that AI didn’t go to law school,” said Hochman.

Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Amid tech layoffs, anxiety around artificial intelligence and a forthcoming run for president, Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed an executive order that calls for state agencies to explore ways to mitigate job losses stemming from  AI.

The order, among other things, tells state agencies to explore severance policies, subsidized employment and other ways to help displaced workers. It also calls for a report on the impact of AI on the California labor market. 

In addition, it calls for the study of increased job training , stock compensation, cooperative business ownership for workers and how unions are negotiating over AI.

Newsom signed executive orders last month and in 2023 simultaneously putting in place AI protections and encouraging state agencies to use the technology. 

The latest order comes a day after Facebook owner Meta laid off 8,000 workers, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg citing AI in a memo to staff after the cuts. Tech companies Cisco and Block also recently cited AI after laying off thousands of workers. The order also comes two days after the California Senate passed the No Robo Bosses Act, which prevents businesses from using decisions made by AI and other automated systems as the sole reason a person gets fired or disciplined. Newsom vetoed a similar bill last fall. 

In February, AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler, members of the California Labor Federation and labor leaders in Democratic primary states pledged to pull support for a Newsom 2028 presidential campaign if he didn’t take steps to protect workers from artificial intelligence. Newsom’s veto of the predecessor of the No Robo Bosses Act was named as a reason for that pledge.

In a statement shared with CalMatters, California Labor Federation president Lorena Gonzalez said the executive order is welcome but not enough.

“We are glad that Governor Newsom is acknowledging the potential harm of AI on workers, but it’s not enough to just study the issue, we have to take action now. Catastrophic job loss from AI is not inevitable, it’s a political choice,” she said.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Jaz Roche, also known to nearly 11,000 Tiktok followers as @spo0kymom, hawks facial cleansing bars, baby wagons and AI tools in short social media videos. 

On a website where clients can pay her to post videos about their products, she says she’s based in Pennsylvania. Yet the content creator has taken an interest in the California governor’s race lately. 

Tiktok and Instagram accounts linked to Roche have posted 34 times in the past 10 days to boost the campaign of billionaire Tom Steyer or to criticize his main Democratic opponent, Xavier Becerra. 

“Hear me out, I have something to admit,” she says in the first video, posted May 8, on an account where she describes herself as a “so-cal girlypop.” “I did not expect the most progressive governor candidate to be a billionaire. But look at the policies, you guys.”

What she didn’t say was that Steyer’s campaign is paying her to say it. 

Steyer, who has poured nearly $200 million into the most expensive primary campaign in state history, is under scrutiny for using paid social media influencers to post favorable things about him. 

Is that legal? 

Gov. Gavin Newsom three years ago signed a law meant to bring transparency to the increasingly intertwined world of politics and content creators, enacting a law requiring influencers to be upfront in their posts about being paid by a political campaign. In one of the first tests of the law, regulators have opened an investigation into one of the Steyer influencer videos.

But experts and transparency advocates aren’t optimistic: The law was intentionally designed with no real penalties, and the agency responsible for enforcing it sometimes takes years to resolve investigations.

“This is where the ‘Wild West’ analogy becomes useful,” said Dan Schnur, a political science professor and former chair of the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

‘Inundate the internet’

Campaign finance filings from January through April 18 show Steyer has paid over $123,400 to at least eight influencers. The New York Times reported that includes $100,000 to Texas-based Latino mega-influencer Carlos Eduardo Espina, whose 14.3 million Tiktok followers are a coveted target for Democrats and who has endorsed Steyer. 

The campaign is also paying over $870,000 to a digital media agency, Group Project Digital, that solicits creators to post daily videos about Steyer. The listing initially offered $10 per video; it was amended last week to offer $1,000 a month and now includes a sentence telling creators they need to disclose the payments.

The state investigation covers just one of the influencer videos, in which content creator Isaiah Washington (known as @zaydante) did not disclose that Steyer’s campaign paid him $10,000 for a now-deleted video. It was sparked by a complaint from a pair of political social media influencers who post frequently in support of Becerra. On Tuesday, they filed another complaint alleging numerous additional paid, undisclosed posts, including from accounts in other countries.

“What he’s done is inundate the Internet in every way, shape and form to try and create an echo chamber,” said Beatrice Gomberg, one of the complainants. 

Among the accounts they’ve recently highlighted: @foosgonewild, which has posted memes, content about Southern California street culture and, on May 5, an interview with Steyer talking about his opposition to ICE. The account has 3.3 million followers on Instagram and 1 million on Tiktok. 

The Tiktok video has no disclosures. On Instagram, at the bottom of the video description, the account notes it’s a partner with California-based social video firm Flighthouse. Neither the content creator nor Flighthouse responded to requests for comment. The Steyer campaign would not disclose how much it paid the firm.

Steyer has defended soliciting influencers, saying they deserve to be paid for their work. 

Spokesperson Kevin Liao called Gomberg’s first complaint “baseless” and said the campaign specified in its contracts with all third-party content firms that they needed to include payment disclosures, satisfying the campaign’s legal obligations under the state transparency law. The campaign doesn’t review posts in advance, he said. 

Asked why the campaign had paid some creators who don’t live in California, he said, “I don’t see why that’s an issue.”

“Content creators, wherever they’re based, have followers in California,” he said. 

‘Politics is all content now’

The blowback reveals the rising power and profitability of content creators in politics. One in five Americans regularly gets news on TikTok, rising to more than two in five for those under age 30. With traditional television hemorrhaging viewership and Americans hooked on the infinite scroll, campaigns are increasingly chasing posts. 

They regularly hold events to court paid and unpaid influencers and sit for video interviews, aided by a new crop of talent agencies and digital media firms that represent influencers and solicit their content. 

The relationship has contributed to at least one politician’s downfall: After attending a creator meeting for then-gubernatorial hopeful Eric Swalwell last fall, political influencer Arielle Fodor (aka @mrs.frazzled) received a flurry of messages warning her to stay away from him. It prompted her to post videos discussing rumors of his sexual misconduct, she has said. He quit the race after reporters covered several allegations of harassment and assault.

“Politics is all content now,” said Alex Stack, a Democratic consultant and former communications staffer for Gov. Gavin Newsom. “Candidates need to be content creators and they need a little online army behind them to get traction.”

Roche’s videos about Steyer — some featuring her talking, some simply showing text praising Steyer over mundane videos of her life — have gotten no more than 1,100 views each. They’re posted on accounts with fewer than two dozen followers, a far cry from the millions of Californians Steyer’s TV ad spending blitz is reaching. 

But they provide something critical for the billionaire candidate who’s funding his own campaign: the impression of grassroots support. 

In a briefing memo for creators obtained by CalMatters, the campaign’s digital firm tells Tiktokers and Instagrammers that the “title of billionaire is his biggest sticking point,” and that the campaign wants to reach California women, Latinos and African Americans. The Sacramento Bee first reported on the memo.

Organic content?

Advertisers covet creators regardless of audience size for their ability to portray a product endorsement as an organic recommendation from a friend. Candidates courting voters are no different. 

For example, an organization representing California lawyers is paying influencers to promote a ballot measure targeting Uber’s responsibility for sexual assaults by its drivers. Matt Mahan’s campaign for governor has also paid influencers and meme accounts for content boosting him. Instagram users see disclosures on those videos’ descriptions.

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, Karen Bass’ challenger Spencer Pratt is offering money on social media gig platforms to make videos featuring viral-friendly soundbites of him.

Serabeth Mullaney, a part-time San Francisco content creator promoting cat treats and AI tools, turned down an offer to make videos boosting Steyer’s campaign because of her opposition to billionaires in politics. The 29-year-old said she gets most of her news from social media so she’s concerned about the seep of paid political ads into influencer content. 

“Anyone desperate to make that (money), they’re going to do the campaign,” she said. “Whether or not they believe in Tom Steyer, they’re going to post those videos.”

The concern mirrors the state Fair Political Practices Commission’s rationale for proposing the 2024 transparency law. Before that, campaigns only needed to disclose payment for ads they posted directly; paid content on third-party platforms was largely unregulated. 

But the agency primarily relies on complaints to launch investigations, and violations of the law come with few consequences — no fines or criminal charges for creators or campaigns. The only thing the agency can do is ask a court to force an influencer to disclose payments, but experts say that’s an expensive and time-consuming effort for a fleeting video.

Sen. Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana Democrat who authored the law, said paid influencers in politics are more prevalent than three years ago and lawmakers should make the requirements more enforceable.

“Transparency is like whack-a-mole,” Umberg said. “Every year there’s a new modality, and so there’s a new way to get around stuff.”

Becerra’s online army

Now the gubernatorial candidates and their supporters are engaged in a mass scrutiny of all the posts boosting each others’ campaigns.

Critics have also questioned the relationship between Becerra and numerous creators who have boosted his campaign since Swalwell dropped out. The Becerra campaign has insisted it has never paid any content creator for a post.

The campaign seeks relationships with creators who are willing to post for free as a blend of campaign volunteer and reporter, said digital strategist Alf Lamont. 

“Paid influencer campaigns don’t carry the kind of punch that organizing does,” Lamont said. “We want to make sure we’re getting folks who truly believe in it so we don’t face the second-guesses and the ‘paid by’ and the feeling you’re looking at something that’s insincere.”

Jordan “Jay” Gonzalez’s posts included lifestyle content, Latino advocacy and even salmon DNA facials before he started creating pro-Becerra videos on multiple platforms in March, a month before the campaign hired him as a full-time social media strategist. Gonzalez has recently been amending his posts with disclosures that he is paid by the campaign, “out of extreme caution so as not to seem disingenuous to my audience.” 

Opponents point out Gonzalez and another creator who has posted numerous times in Becerra’s favor, Maggie Reed or @mermaidmamamaggie, have previously charged for content. Antonio Villaraigosa’s campaign solicited unpaid videos from both of them in the spring, and received quotes from each influencer’s agent of $7,000 to $16,500, emails shared with CalMatters show. The Villaraigosa campaign confirmed the exchanges. 

On Tuesday, Steyer’s campaign filed a complaint alleging both influencers’ videos were paid for by Becerra’s campaign with no disclosure.

Becerra’s campaign has not reported any payments to Reed in campaign finance filings, and Lamont denied paying either creator for content. Gonzalez, in an email, said that he had previously declined a paid offer from the Villaraigosa campaign. Reed did not respond to a request for comment.

‘A SoCal girl’

Gomberg and Kaitlyn Hennessy, friends who met at a Becerra rally, have both posted frequently in favor of his campaign — for free, they say. 

The pair began sleuthing online in early May, eventually filing a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission last week alleging Steyer’s campaign hired Roche, Washington and several other content creators to post on his behalf without disclosing it. 

Posing as another, unnamed campaign, they emailed creators offering paid political content work to prompt them to talk about posting for Steyer’s campaign.

One account, @isabel.speakss, purported to belong to a “so cal girl sharing her thoughts” named Isabel Mendoza and has exclusively posted about Steyer since May 9. The woman in the videos appears identical to Jade Johnson, a Florida-based influencer. 

Another account, @jess.votes, is linked to another Florida content creator.

Since the complaint was filed, Roche and the other creators have included disclaimers in their posts. None of them responded to inquiries from CalMatters asking if they knew about the campaign disclosure law. After a CalMatters reporter asked Johnson whether she was asked to pose as a California voter, the @isabel.speakss account on Monday afternoon removed the “so cal” description from its profile.

None of those creators are listed in Steyer’s latest campaign finance filings as subcontractors of any digital strategy firm. Steyer spokesperson Liao said they will appear in the next filing. 

CalMatters reached out to all the creators listed in the filings; none agreed to an interview. They include lifestyle influencers, comedians and musicians whom Steyer paid between $1,500 and $10,000, mostly through another firm, to post video interviews with Steyer or talk about his platform. One of them labeled her video a “paid partnership;” others did not disclose campaign payments or have since deleted their videos.

By Ricardo Cano, EdSource

Higher education leaders were cautiously optimistic in January when Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposed budget that included a combined $716.3 million in new base funding for the University of California and California State University. Their sentiment remained largely unchanged Thursday, as Newsom’s revised budget maintained the proposed funding for universities. 

UC and CSU officials breathed a sigh of relief because it wasn’t a given that the funding earmarked in the governor’s January budget would remain intact in his May revision. The state’s university systems do not receive the minimum funding guarantees that TK-12 schools and community colleges get under California’s Proposition 98, and must compete with other dueling priorities covered in the rest of the state budget.

Newsom’s updated budget appropriates $350.6 million in new base funds for UC and $365.7 million for CSU, meaning UC would receive $5.3 billion from the state’s general fund and CSU would get $5.6 billion.

Those funds represent a 5% annual budget increase that had been promised by the state to UC and CSU under a five-year compact agreement. In exchange for the state funding boost, the two university systems must work to raise graduation rates and enroll more in-state residents. 

Newsom’s May proposal would still defer paying out $129.7 million for UC and $143.8 million for CSU until next year. The deferred funds represent a 3% base increase for both systems.

Still, the investments in the state budget would aid California’s public universities as they face intense scrutiny from the Trump administration, which has sought to investigate the institutions and withhold millions of dollars in public research grants.

“The UC funding included in the May revision will help ensure that the university remains affordable and accessible to California students,” UC President James B. Milliken said in a statement. “As the University of California faces ongoing federal funding uncertainty and increasing operational and labor costs, state funding for UC is more important than ever.”

California’s community college system, meanwhile, would receive a $197.7 million increase from the state’s Prop. 98 general fund, reflecting a 4.31% cost-of-living adjustment for TK-12 schools and community colleges.

“Gov. Newsom’s May Revise reflects strong confidence in the California Community Colleges and the critical role we play in California’s economic future,” Chancellor Sonya Christian said in a statement.

"We were more worried about getting crushed by slabs or getting cut with blades and stuff like that," he says, "not getting a lung disease."

He says he made some countertops out of granite, but mostly he cut "quartz," a popular composite made by factories that take bits of quartz mined from quarries and mix it with binders and pigments. Compared to granite or marble, manufactured quartz contains far more of the mineral silica — and silica dust can cause lung damage if you breathe it in.

That danger has become dramatically clear in California, where officials have been grappling with an epidemic of silicosis, an irreversible lung disease. They've tracked over 550 sickened countertop workers, almost all Hispanic men, with most of the cases emerging over the last few years. Over 30 workers have died, and more than 50 have had lung transplants, according to a public dashboard where the numbers keep going up.

On May 21, a workplace safety board in California will vote on whether the state should ban the cutting of high-silica quartz countertop material, as a group of doctors has petitioned the state to do. Those doctors say the severity of workers' disease suggests that it's caused by exposure to toxic ingredients in addition to silica, like pigments or resins.

Rebecca Shult, a lawyer for the major quartz company Cambria, said in a March hearing that her company objected to the idea that any one subset of silica-containing products was to blame. "For this reason, we take issue with the very nomenclature of 'engineered stone silicosis'" used on California's disease-tracking dashboard, she said.

Meanwhile, other states — like Hanicker's home state of Florida — haven't reported seeing large numbers of countertop workers getting sick.

"Please keep in mind, there is only a handful of silicosis cases in the other 49 states," Shult told lawmakers in Congress during a hearing earlier this year.

But David Michaels, an epidemiologist with George Washington University and an expert on workplace safety, says California is seeing a large number of sick workers because it's been actively and thoroughly looking for cases, unlike other states.

Thousands of countertop workers across the country likely have unrecognized lung damage, says Michaels.

"We could easily have 10,000 workers here with silicosis and possibly far more," he says, noting that an estimated 100,000 people work in this industry in the U.S., and studies done in Australia found lung disease in over 10% of the countertop workforce there.

"This is life-changing"

Many doctors aren't familiar with silicosis, says Michaels, and they don't always ask about a person's job. So workers who do seek medical help often get misdiagnosed.

That's what happened to Hanicker about five years ago, when he developed a knot of pain under his shoulder. He took ibuprofen and powered through. When the pain started creeping around his chest, his wife worried about his heart and insisted that he seek emergency care.

"We didn't think," he says, "that it could be, you know, work-related, from the dust."

The doctors took an X-ray, diagnosed pneumonia, and sent him home with antibiotics, which didn't help. Next, he had a CT scan. It found nodules in his lungs, and a biopsy showed silicosis. He remembers breaking down and crying with his wife.

"We realized that, hey, this is life-changing. There is no cure for this," says Hanicker, 39, who suffers from pain, weakness and shortness of breath. Doctors say he'll eventually need a lung transplant, and he also has a silica-related autoimmune disease.

"The two biggest things that hurt me is how it affects my marriage and not being able to be a father the way I want to with my kids," he says, saying he can't play sports with his young children or run along beside them to teach them to ride a bike. He's sued the makers and distributors of quartz slabs.

Quartz manufacturers like Cambria point out that breathing in dust while cutting any high-silica material — such as the natural stone quartzite — can be dangerous. They maintain that their products are safe if the fabrication workshops that cut the slabs use sufficient precautions such as vacuum systems and water sprays to control the dust.

"Workplace safety is a huge thing," says attorney Khaled Taqi-Eddin, who represents Cambria. "If you don't have good workplace safety practices, whether it's a quote-unquote 'natural' stone or whether it's a quartz stone, you are going to end up having people continuously getting sick."

Occupational health experts who have petitioned California to ban quartz, however, say this material "is too toxic to fabricate and install safely, and education and enforcement alone will not be sufficient to curtail the escalating occupational health emergency caused by this product."

A few weeks ago, in the first quartz and silicosis lawsuit to come to trial outside of California, a jury in Colorado awarded damages to an injured worker named Tyler Jordan, finding that actions by several companies led to his illnesses. 

Jordan, in an interview with NPR, said he'd started working in his family's small countertop shop as a teenager and worked full time after graduating from high school. After about a decade, he was diagnosed with silicosis. Shocked, he struggled to believe it was real.

"I felt like I was too young. It felt like there was going to be some sort of mistake. It felt wrong," says Jordan, who had hoped to take over the family business but now can't work anywhere near silica. He developed silica-related kidney failure and had to go on dialysis and have a kidney transplant from his father.

"The worst situation"

One of Jordan's doctors is Cecile Rose, an occupational pulmonologist with National Jewish Health and the University of Colorado in Denver. She was part of a team that reported on some of the first cases of severe silicosis in young U.S. countertop workers.

Back then, in 2019, she'd seen seven cases in Colorado — including a couple of women who worked as cleaners and got exposed when they swept up silica dust. The severity of the disease and the young age of the victims alarmed Rose.

Now, she and other doctors have seen about 20 cases in their state, she says. And she and her colleagues created a voluntary registry where doctors can share their experiences. 

"We have cases from Illinois, from Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, Wyoming," says Rose, adding that this effort is scattershot, because physicians hear about it through word of mouth.

James Nevin, an attorney whose firm represents both Jordan and Hanicker, says he and his colleagues represent other workers in about 25 states, and there are reasons why countertop laborers wouldn't want to talk to reporters, lawyers, or doctors. "They're terrified of losing their jobs, if they are still able to work. They're terrified of being deported," he says. "They're afraid to come forward."

In December, Massachusetts made headlines when that state announced its first case. Since then, state officials have found two more.

New York Department of Health officials, meanwhile, told NPR that they knew of only four cases in their state. Officials in Washington state similarly knew of four cases of silica-related lung disease that occurred across three different businesses handling quartz. At one countertop-maker in Chicago, federal inspectors found several cases.

"I'm 100% sure that there are many more cases in Florida, and New York, and probably every state in this country," says Rose.

"This is the worst situation I've seen affecting a workforce in my 35 years," says Kurt Hegmann, director of the Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health in Utah.

He says sick workers have started showing up in clinics in his state and that although no one knows how many cases there are in Utah because it's not being systematically tracked, "we know that in a case of one of the fabricators, that 38% of the workforce is affected."

"I believe that California is actually leading the country, correctly, in how to address this problem," says Hegmann.

"We're probably missing 95%"

In 2023, because of concerns about silicosis in this industry, the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration started a targeted inspection program. Since then, its staff has inspected over 400 countertop workplaces in at least 25 states, effectively checking the worksites of more than 7,500 workers, according to a spokesperson with the Department of Labor who shared details about the program's findings.

There's a procedure for sampling airborne silica, and it turns out that about 20% of the samples taken during this inspection program were high enough to exceed the "permissible exposure limit," which is the maximum that workers can be legally exposed to, the spokesperson told NPR.

What's more, 33% of the samples collected during this program were above the "action level" for silica. That's the level that requires employers to take additional precautions like health screenings for workers and increased air testing.

But inspectors also issued over 75 citations for lack of medical surveillance of workers, according to the Department of Labor spokesperson, who added "there is evidence from publicly available research that demonstrates there is a general lack of medical surveillance occurring related to silica exposure."

Kenneth Rosenman, an expert on silicosis and workplace disease at Michigan State University, points to a recent survey showing most countertop shops don't offer medical exams to their workers.

Plus, studies have highlighted the inadequacies of the federal system for trying to collect data on nonfatal workplace accidents or illnesses, he says.

"We have a lousy system that is dependent on employer reporting," says Rosenman. "We're missing at least half of the work-related amputations in the country that occur. We're probably missing 95% of the cases of silicosis that occur in the country."

The situation in California is truly concerning, he says: "This is nothing that I've ever personally seen in my 43 years of working with silicosis."

But to know how widespread lung damage is in the U.S. countertop industry, he says, "we need somebody to go out and do a survey of fabricators in multiple states — a sample — and see how many people actually have the disease that we're not aware of."

Michaels, who used to direct the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, says that this is the kind of study that a research agency called the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health could do, but the current administration fired almost all of its staff — those positions were reinstated earlier this year — and wanted to cut its budget by about 80%, although Congress didn't go along with that.

He thinks that unless something drastic is done to reduce worker exposures, the numbers will continue to rise. That's why he favors the ban on quartz being considered in California this week.

"There is no reason," says Michaels, "to think that workers doing the same work in other states will avoid the same terrible consequences that workers in California are facing."

For Yuliana Rico Chavez, immigration fears are part of her family’s everyday reality.

“Both my family and I are scared and that has a lot to do with who I’m going to vote for and where I stand right now,” said the 19-year-old business major at American River College in Sacramento. 

But immigration wasn’t one of the issues that mattered most to her when asked about the California governor’s race. She instead pointed to affordability issues including housing costs and gas prices. 

“My mom and my brothers are the ones who are working, so there’s a lot of weight on their shoulders now that the prices have increased,” she said, noting that she doesn’t work because she’s a full-time student. “The only thing that matters is if they care about affordability for the people in California and how long they’ve helped the actual people of California.” 

Chavez is part of Latinos Unidos and El Centro, student groups that support Latino students on campus. She said she’s leaning towards supporting Xavier Becerra because of his experience fighting the Trump administration when he was Health and Human Services Secretary under the Biden administration. 

Yuliana Rico Chavez studies Thursday, April 2, 2026, at El Centro — a Latino support center at American River College in Sacramento.(Gerardo Zavala/CapRadio)

Immigration remains deeply personal for many young Latino Californians, particularly as the Trump administration ramps up enforcement operations. But interviews with young voters and political experts suggest economic pressures like housing costs, education and healthcare are increasingly important. 

Democratic candidates are capitalizing on addressing these concerns as more Latino voters are seemingly drifting from the Republican party after a rightward shift seen during the 2024 presidential election. That shift, in which a larger share of Latinos voted for Republican candidates across California, was also largely attributed to cost-of-living issues . 

But the continued focus on economics also raises questions about how much messages about immigration resonate with voters in the governor’s race.

Lilian Esbejel, 30, studies psychology at American River College and is also part of El Centro and Latinos Unidos. She became a naturalized citizen last year and will be casting her first ballot this June during the primaries. 

Her top issues are similar to Chavez’s — affordability, education, housing and healthcare. 

“I have to get more hours for work and it’s complicated because I need to make more money but at the same time I want to build a future and I want to get my studies,” she said.

Esbejel said the issue of immigration is still a big concern for her, particularly when she struggled to access financial aid while navigating the immigration process. 

“I felt like I needed to get more resources,” she said. “It was scary because I was trying to get the money and the time.” 

Yet she said immigration feels less like a political issue and more like a daily constant that she and her family have to grapple with. 

Both of these students’ concerns are in line with national data on top concerns for Latino voters. A recent poll by UnidosUS found that economic stability — cost of living, inflation, affordable housing, healthcare and jobs — were the most important issues. Immigration was fifth, despite increased federal enforcement across the country.  

A changing Latino electorate

Mariana Valdez Jimenez, a specialist at El Centro who works closely with Latino students at American River College, said she was not surprised students did not immediately bring up immigration as a top political concern. 

“Immigration almost is transcending the political world,” she said. “That is an emotional conversation that is being had at home.” 

Jimenez noted that many young Latinos she works with also feel politically disconnected. 

“Right now young Latinos don’t feel like they have efficacy with politics,” she said. “They don’t feel like they have a chance.” 

Political experts say previous generations of Latino voters included large numbers of newly naturalized immigrants who saw immigration policy as a key political issue. But younger Latino voters who grew up in California are increasingly focused on broader economic pressures affecting working-class families. 

Matt Barreto, founder of the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute, said affordability now dominates concerns among all demographics, including young Latinos. 

“There’s always that disconnect between Latinos being a huge part of the state economy, the state population, the public school system, but a relatively smaller part of the electorate,” Barreto said. 

Barreto noted Latino voters generally make up about a quarter of the state’s electorate, but that percentage is expected to increase over time as more young Latinos become eligible to vote.

“At some point we will be 40% of the electorate,” he said. 

Barreto also said Latino voters are becoming more politically diverse and less driven by identity politics. He attributes that to “great strides” the state has made in electing Latinos to powerful positions.

“That allows the average Latino voter to look deeper and more holistically at the issues because we’ve been able to get our members of Congress, our members of the state Legislature and these other offices finally elected after decades of struggle,” he stressed.

Baretto also noted that California has only had one Latino governor — Romualdo Pacheco — who was never elected. The then-lieutenant governor took the seat in 1875 when the previous governor resigned. The last Latino candidate to come close to becoming governor was then-Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante during the 2003 recall election won by Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

The recent rise in popularity of Becerra, who previously served as California attorney general, may be the closest a Latino has gotten to being elected to governor since then. 

Affordability vs immigration enforcement 

The leading Democratic candidates for governor are all addressing immigration enforcement in differing ways with some making them central to their campaigns. 

Becerra has largely focused on affordability and health care while also pointing to his own background as the son of immigrants. 

“I was born here, I’ve been here forever,” Becerra said during a recent interview following a campaign rally in Sacramento. “But I still am concerned about immigration not just as a policymaker, not just as the next governor, but as a son of immigrants who has family members who are recent immigrants.” 

When asked how he plans to reach out to young Latino voters, he said he’s garnered support “organically” through online content creators and social media. 

“Whether it’s because it’s the ‘Becerra era,’ or because I’m ‘Tio Xavi,’ all I know is that people are out there and they are helping us move this election in our direction,” he said referring to names that have become popular online among supporters.  

In a recent interview with CapRadio during a No Kings Rally in Sacramento, Democratic candidate Tom Steyer acknowledged affordability as the biggest issue for young Latinos, but he’s also made immigration enforcement far more central to his message. 

“I think the issue which is not specifically Latino, but much more significantly Latino, is about ICE, is about immigration, is about the attempt by the Trump administration to terrorize and pick on people of color and specifically Latinos,” he said. “I’m for abolishing ICE.” 

Steyer, a billionaire who is self-funding his campaign, has been among the top polling Democrats in the race, though he’s trailed Becerra in recent weeks. 

He said he also believes the threat of artificial intelligence taking jobs is a growing concern for younger voters, including Latinos. 

“We cannot allow artificial intelligence to take away jobs from millions of Californians and do nothing about it,” he said. “We’ve got to be making sure that artificial intelligence is a tool for workers, not a replacement of workers.”

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa — the other prominent Latino candidate in the race — argued that other candidates misunderstand Latino voters if they see immigration as their primary concern. 

“The Latino agenda is the American agenda,” Villaraigosa said. “They care about a good job and an economy that’s working for more people. Yes they care about immigration, but the notion that that’s all they care about or the most important thing just isn’t true.” 

If elected, Villaraigosa said he would implement his gas relief plan that would call for the state to provide relief payments to low-income families if prices stay above $5.50 per gallon for over a month.  

Villaraigosa said young people have the most at stake when it comes to elections and he called on them to get involved. 

“Look at the candidates,” he said. “I think you’ll see that only one of us have the wherewithal and the record of taking these issues on.” 

Republican political consultant Mike Madrid said the candidates performing well with Latino voters right now are those leaning into the working-class identity and economic concerns. 

“This is a community that does not feel politically engaged,” he added. “It doesn’t feel listened to. It doesn’t feel like it has a home in either party.” 

Madrid attributes Becerra’s rise in popularity partially to a shift he’s seen among working-class Latinos looking for candidates they relate to personally. 

“They’re stepping up and saying, maybe we need to look a little bit different in this Democratic Party not because of the complexion of our skin or the sound of our last name, but because of the affordability issues and working class concerns that I have,” he said.  

Madrid argued Becerra fits that description better than other candidates pointing to his 24 years in Congress representing a blue collar and immigrant-dense district in East Los Angeles.

A new Emerson College poll shows Becerra leading with nearly 20% with Steyer and Republican Steve Hilton both at 17%.

Villaraigosa is still stuck in the single digits with only 4%. Madrid said that’s likely due to name recognition issues with voters who were too young to know who he was when he was mayor of Los Angeles.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing further budget cuts and expanding the state’s reserves despite a recent surge in tax revenue — an attempt to balance the books in anticipation of a long-term deficit in the coming years, he said.

In a presentation riddled with criticism of the Trump administration and featuring memes including an image of President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as “Dumb and Dumber,” Newsom released his last budget plan as governor on Thursday. 

He proposed a nearly $350 billion spending plan that would balance the budget for two years and cut longer-term budget gaps in half. Newsom had pledged not to leave his successor with a giant structural deficit. Under his plan, the state would face a $10.3 billion deficit in fiscal year 2028-29 and $9.6 billion in fiscal year 2029-30.

“I’m not trying to get out of Dodge,” Newsom said. “This is a balanced budget structurally for the next 18 months after I’m gone.”

He proposed slashing general fund spending by $1.8 billion, primarily by further cutting Medi-Cal, including by raising monthly premiums on undocumented immigrant adults by $20 and reinstating Medi-Cal asset tests. 

While Newsom wants the state to continue withdrawing $7 billion from reserves this year, his proposal would also shore up the rainy day fund by transferring $3.6 billion to the account next year and setting aside nearly $10 billion more for fiscal year 2027-28.

Senate Budget Committee Vice Chair Roger Niello, a Roseville Republican, said the governor’s proposal does not go far enough to cut spending and dips into the reserves despite a year of strong revenue. The structural deficit would also remain beyond fiscal year 2027-28, Niello said.

“I just don’t see how he can say that he’s leaving (behind) a good budget situation, even a balanced budget, when we know we’re up for a significant (structural deficit),” he said.

The governor’s presentation is an updated outlook at the state’s finances since January, when Newsom’s administration projected a “modest shortfall” of $2.9 billion that would grow to a $22 billion deficit in fiscal year 2027-28. 

Since then, tax revenue grew faster than anticipated, thanks to a robust stock market and California’s flush AI-driven technology sector. Newsom projects that the state will see $16.5 billion more in revenue over a three-year budgeting window than expected in January. 

But Newsom said the state’s financial outlook remains ominous, attributing much of the uncertainty to Trump’s policies, including a spending plan the president calls his “one, big beautiful bill,” which could strip 2 million low-income Californians of health insurance coverage. Newsom also slammed the war in Iran, which has sent gas prices skyrocketing nationwide.

“We have a president who … doesn’t particularly give a damn about the financial situation of the average American,” Newsom said. 

A graphic shown during Gov. Gavin Newsom’s presentation of his revised 2026-27 budget proposal in Sacramento on May 14, 2026.Miguel Gutierrez Jr./CalMatters

It’s unclear how long California’s revenue boon would last. The recent spike in tax collection suggests that the stock market is reaching “bubble territory” and could head toward an “eventual bust,” said the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which advises the state Legislature. “The state should be prepared for revenues to be tens of billions lower within one or two years.”

California’s spending has continued to outpace revenue growth. Since fiscal year 2019-20, spending has grown by more than $100 billion, primarily from maintaining and expanding K-14 education, according to the LAO. 

“We need to tighten our belt, and we need to focus on the outcomes,” he said.
But Newsom is proposing new spending in some areas, including $300 million to subsidize private healthcare for low-income and middle-class Californians as well as money to offer paid pregnancy leave for TK-12 and community college employees and to cut filing fees for roughly 250,000 new businesses in half.

Will Newsom butt heads with legislators? 

Parts of Newsom’s spending plan are in sharp contrast to what Democrats in the Legislature want. They prioritized preserving healthcare and education funding in their budget proposals. 

He stuck to his plan to limit care for roughly 200,000 immigrants, such as refugees, asylees and trafficking survivors but delayed it until July 2027. Senate Democrats want the state to fully fund their benefits.

Newsom also stuck to his proposed cuts to the state’s in-home supportive services program, which both Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature oppose, and rejected appeals from Senate Democrats and local governments to spend more on homelessness and on Proposition 36, the voter-approved initiative that increased penalties for petty crimes. 

His plan also steers clear of any major tax increases, putting him at odds with progressive legislators who have for months called for tax increases on big corporations. 

Newsom, who called himself a “small business guy,” says he also wants companies to pay their fair share — by capping their corporate tax credits permanently at $5 million or 50% of a company’s tax liability, whichever is higher. He estimates it would bring in $850 million next year and $1.7 billion the next. 

The California Chamber of Commerce opposes the proposed tax increase, saying it “will burden our entrepreneurs and employers who are driving higher-than-expected revenues” and likely be passed on to consumers. 

Senate Democrats want corporations with several hundred employees to pay up if their workers are enrolled in Medi-Cal — Senate leaders say that would generate $5 to $8 billion a year. 

But there is some common ground. Both Newsom and Democratic legislators want to increase how much the state can save in its rainy day fund during a good year, which would require voter approval. Newsom said wants to increase it to 20% of the state’s general fund tax revenues. California has a volatile tax system that swells with capital gains when the stock market is surging and contracts in down years. A larger rainy day fund would cushion the leaner years.

Newsom’s presentation marks the beginning of budget negotiations between the governor and state lawmakers. Legislators have until June 30 to work out a deal with the governor ahead of the new fiscal year.

Health premiums for undocumented immigrants would rise

Newsom’s budget includes a significant change in healthcare for unauthorized immigrants. About 1.3 million of them who are enrolled in Medi-Cal would move to a separate fee-for-service program, a change meant to prevent the state from losing federal funding for Medi-Cal. They would lose access to benefits such as case management, some housing assistance and medically tailored meals.

Newsom’s proposal would hike the monthly premium for undocumented immigrant adults from $30 to $50 starting July 2027, on top of previously approved cuts that included freezing new enrollment for adult undocumented immigrants and eliminating dental coverage for those already enrolled. 

“No one in the country has done more and no one has done better to address their anxiety and needs,” Newsom told reporters. “To the extent we are forced to make decisions, that’s called reality, that’s called math.” 

He would also further reinstate Medi-Cal asset tests for seniors and adults with disabilities.

Healthcare advocates are infuriated by the cuts.

“We’re hopeful that the Legislature will stand up for immigrants, frankly in a way the governor has not,” Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network.

Graham Knaus, CEO of the California State Association of Counties, said Newsom’s budget proposal leaves counties out to dry. Counties are requesting $6.4 billion over the next two years to care for Californians at risk of losing Medi-Cal coverage and to support hospitals and behavioral health services. 

“The governor proposes to hide from state responsibility while demanding counties do the state’s job for free, and we don’t see how that aligns with California values,” Knaus told CalMatters.

Some lawmakers are urging the state to delay those previously approved cuts. Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Los Angeles Democrat, introduced legislation to reverse some of those cuts and maintain Medi-Cal eligibility for the poorest undocumented immigrants, although it’s unlikely Newsom would sign it. 

Tug of war over education funding

The governor touted a “record-high level of education spending” while withholding $3.9 billion in constitutionally required funding for TK-12 schools and community colleges — an accounting maneuver meant to guard against faulty revenue projections.  Legislative Democrats support giving districts the full amount. 

It’s less than Newsom proposed withholding in January. By law, the state must direct roughly 40 cents for every dollar in general fund revenue toward the schools, prompting teachers unions and school districts to accuse the governor of shortchanging schools and violating the constitution. 

Newsom wants to require TK-12 schools and community colleges to give teachers and school staff up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy leave, which teachers unions have championed for years. Currently, educators are not eligible for paid parental leave and must dip into their personal time off or sick days. In 2019, Newsom vetoed a similar bill that would have given school employees at least six weeks of paid pregnancy leave, citing high costs.

Newsom said the cost of the benefit will be absorbed by local education agencies, which will receive $907 million more than statutorily required.

The governor also proposed increasing special education funding by $2.4 billion and spending $500 million on literacy and math specialists in high-need schools.  

Newsom seeks restrictions on housing, homelessness dollars

It would be harder for local governments to receive funding for housing and homelessness under the governor’s proposal. 

Newsom wants to ban cities from imposing impact fees on affordable housing developments that also receive state subsidies. A recent study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that the vast majority of recent affordable housing developments in California were subject to such fees, adding nearly $20,000 in costs per unit. 

Though the Legislature has begun to take aim at these fees in recent years, proposals to ban, waive or delay them often flounder amid pushback from local governments, who argue that they fund essential public services. Contentious policy proposals often have an easier time becoming law when packed into the budget, which Newsom may be hoping to exploit.

The revised budget maintains the $500 million in local funding Newsom proposed to give local governments in January — a 50% reduction from prior years — but he added a new rule designed to ensure local governments put “some skin in the game.” Cities and counties would not be eligible for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention funds unless they match that funding.

That could hurt smaller, rural communities that don’t get much federal homelessness funding and don’t have money in their coffers to contribute, ultimately punishing the unhoused people who live there, said Alex Visotzky, senior Califonia policy fellow for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The nonprofit forecasts that homelessness will increase 20% statewide next year if funding remains at the proposed level.

CalMatters’ Ben Christopher, Kristen Hwang and Marisa Kendall contributed reporting.

Residents of Yolo County will have a rare opportunity in the June 2 primary to decide who will serve as judge on the Superior Court. 

Superior Court judges in California oversee the trial courts that handle the vast majority of legal disputes, including criminal cases, civil lawsuits, family law matters, juvenile cases and probate proceedings. Judges rule on evidence and legal motions, oversee trials, approve plea agreements and sentencing, and in many cases help determine outcomes that directly affect public safety.

Superior Court judges are elected by county voters and typically serve six-year terms with few races being contested. Most judges are usually appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy mid-term. But with Judge Janene Beronio retiring at the end of her term, voters get to decide.

Voters will choose between Ryan Davis, a Sacramento County court commissioner and Diane Ortiz, who has spent the last 15 years as a deputy district attorney in Yolo County. 

CapRadio interviewed both candidates about their legal backgrounds, judicial philosophies and more.

Ryan Davis

Notable endorsements: Mike Thompson - Congressman, CA-04 (Yolo), Yolo County Sheriff Tom Lopez, The Sacramento Bee. 

Ryan Davis currently serves as a court commissioner in Sacramento County Superior Court, but he’s called Yolo County home for over four decades growing up in Davis and attending local public schools before earning his law degree from UC Berkeley School of Law in 2009 where he also served as an adjunct professor.

Davis said he spent his legal career preparing for the bench working in criminal law, civil litigation and judicial service in family court.

“Public service was always my calling,” Davis said, tracing his interest in law back to studying philosophy and criminal justice questions as a college student. “I never really considered anything else.”

Inspired by civil rights and post-conviction attorney Bryan Stevenson, Davis entered law school intending to become a public defender and work on death penalty cases.

He said that path led him through county, state and federal public defense work before transitioning into civil litigation at the California Department of Justice and eventually becoming a court commissioner for the Sacramento Superior Court, a role that shares similar tasks as a judge.

“I’ve now spent years presiding over cases, making decisions, ruling on objections, managing a calendar,” Davis said. “I think with that breadth of experience and the fact that it includes judicial experience, I’m ready to serve Yolo County in any assignment.”

Now running for a seat on the Yolo County Superior Court, Davis is campaigning on what he calls his three core commitments: compassion, integrity and justice.

“Compassion is seeing their humanity and their inherent dignity and treating them accordingly,” Davis said. “Integrity is to do the job that you've been trusted to do and don't do anything other than that. Justice is of course the commitment to the overall not just outcome, but the process that ensures that everyone is treated fairly.”

Much of Davis’ current work happens in family law courtrooms, where he said judicial temperament matters as much as legal knowledge. 

“If you’re quick to have your temper rise, you might have a hard time remaining calm,” Davis said. “Remaining calm yourself as the judicial officer helps keep the temperature down in the room more generally.”

Davis emphasized the importance of making litigants feel heard even when the court rules against them.

“As the judicial officer, you need to make some effort to make people feel comfortable enough that they can get out what they need to get out so that they can feel heard, but also so that you can get the information you need to make a good decision,” Davis said.

He also pointed to the less-visible work judges perform behind the scenes, including reviewing case files, researching legal issues and serving on statewide judicial committees. Davis currently serves as an advisory member on the California Judicial Council, the administrative body that oversees the state court system.

On challenges facing courts, Davis acknowledged that California court systems continue to deal with heavy caseloads and strained resources. He added judges often need to balance fairness with efficiency, avoiding unnecessary delays that can clog court calendars.

“Efficiency really is a key aspect of the solution,” he said.

Outside the courtroom, Davis has served on the City of Davis Human Relations Commission and participated in Yolo County’s Neighborhood Court restorative justice program. As a Yolo County native, he said his ties to the region are central to his campaign.

“Yolo County is where I grew up. It’s where I live and raise my own kids now,” Davis said. “I love this community.”

Diane Ortiz

Notable endorsements: Judge Janene Beronio - Yolo County Superior Court, Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Yolo County Deputy Sheriffs Association.

For Diane Ortiz, a career in public service began long before she entered a courtroom.

The Yolo County Superior Court candidate originally planned to become a California Highway Patrol officer, joining the CHP Academy in 2001 before a serious leg injury forced her out of training. Instead of leaving public service behind, Ortiz transitioned into civilian roles within the agency, eventually working in legislative affairs reviewing proposed state legislation and its impact on the department.

But after nearly a decade with CHP, Ortiz said she wanted something more direct.

“I wanted boots on the ground,” Ortiz said. “I wanted to feel like I’m protecting people. I wasn't really getting that from behind a desk.”

That desire led Ortiz to law school while working full time. She attended night classes at Lincoln Law School before becoming a deputy district attorney, first in Shasta County and then in Yolo County in December 2010.

Ortiz said her years inside Yolo County courtrooms is what distinguishes her candidacy.

“For 16 years, I’ve been in the courtroom that I’m trying to now become a judge in,” she said. “It’s just kind of an elevation of service.”

Ortiz emphasized her trial experience and day-to-day courtroom presence. She described prosecutors not as advocates for a single client, but as “ministers of justice” tasked with balancing public safety, fairness and due process.

“We’re not there to appease other people,” Ortiz said. “It’s to do what’s right and just.”

Her current role in Yolo County’s Child Abduction Unit has also given her experience in family law court where she works on custody enforcement and interstate child recovery cases. 

Ortiz also highlighted her work in Yolo County’s addiction intervention and mental health courts, where defendants receive treatment-focused services rather than traditional prosecution pathways.

She said those experiences shaped the judicial philosophy she would bring to the bench: “integrity, fairness, compassion and empathy.”

Ortiz emphasized the importance of courtroom demeanor and judicial temperament, arguing that judges set the tone for everyone in the room.

“If I lose my patience or become dismissive, then that will allow others to display those same qualities,” Ortiz said. “It's very important for a judge to remain calm, but also firm ”

On broader court challenges, Ortiz acknowledged frustrations over crowded dockets and limited courtroom resources, including recent controversy surrounding Yolo County judge dismissing two criminal cases tied to courtroom shortages. She said improving efficiency and case management will be critical for courts moving forward.

Like her opponent, Ortiz emphasized preparation as one of the most important qualities for a judge.

“It’s frustrating when you walk into court and you find out that the judge hasn’t read the briefs,” Ortiz said. “Preparation is probably the number one characteristic for a judge.”

Ortiz also spoke about representation in the judicial system, noting that she was the first Latina prosecutor in the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office. She said diversity on the bench can help build trust in communities that may feel disconnected from the legal system.

“Being a woman of color is not a qualification. Working in the trenches of the judicial system for 16 years is,” Ortiz said. “But it's those lived experiences of being Latina that gives me a broader perspective and that allows me to kind of build that trust. And really it comes with allowing people to feel heard.” 

This is one of 10 judge positions that make up the Yolo County Superior Court. Election day is June 2.

Six Democrats and two Republicans are still leading in the race to become California’s next governor, with the primary less than four weeks away. 

Tony Thurmond is one of the Democratic candidates. He has served as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction since 2019, after previous stints in the State Assembly and as a member of the Richmond City Council. 

Thurmond threw his hat into the gubernatorial race early — more than three years before the 2026 general election — but has struggled to gain traction, polling at the bottom of the crowded candidate field and missing several debate stages. 

Thurmond has stayed in the race, and spoke with Insight Host Vicki Gonzalez about why he thinks his specific policy proposals and lived experience keep his campaign competitive.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights

You announced your run early, in September 2023, as you’re terming out as State Superintendent. Was running for governor a natural next step?

I spent a lot of time thinking about how [I can] continue to serve as I was approaching terming out. I could see that there're just major problems in our state and I'm always someone who believes that government can find solutions. I reflected on it and it just struck me that the governor has the most influence over what happens in our state of any other elected official because of what happens in the budget, or the ability to vote for a bill or veto a bill. I thought, ‘that's what I'll run for and nothing else.’

I love this state. It's been good to me even during tough times, and I want to help this state get better, and I know that we can. I still have hope, and I want to continue the work and help the 40 million people in our state. 

What are some of the major problems you want to tackle? And for voters that want something different from the current establishment, how would you be different as governor?

I'm running on a platform of what I call “tabletop issues.” Yes I'm a Democrat, but I'm running to represent all the people in this state regardless of their background. And to me, the real issues in this race are: can you put food on your table? Can you square away some money to buy a home? These things are slipping away for many Californians. Buying a home is the American dream. I have a plan to build two million housing units and to give down payment assistance grants to those who need it.

And, we've got to address homelessness in this state. We have 10,000 homeless teens who are on the street right now. When you think about who's homeless in our state, 40% of the unhoused are older Californians. I'm on a mission to help the people who need help the most. And I'm grateful that I've had experiences working on housing, on homelessness issues, on creating good jobs. We need to create good jobs for folks in our state so that Californians can stay here, and afford to take care of themselves and their families.

These were also priorities for Governor Gavin Newsom. You campaigned for Newsom during his previous runs for elected office, and are an ally of his. But what would you have done differently as governor?

This governor has done a lot of great things. These almost eight years of his administration and mine have been characterized by wildfires and natural disasters of other kinds. I think that the governor has been a very hands-on governor. The reason I supported him all those years is because he's an idea person, he's a visionary.

I think where we’re different is we need our governor to be able to deliver, even on these hard challenges that we're dealing with. I know he made a pledge to build so many units of housing; that hasn't materialized. But this is something that is not new to me. I've got a plan that would allow us to build 2.3 million housing units by the year 2030. It basically involves using surplus property that school districts have in every county of the state. It's a plan that's been studied and I know it can work. I'm giving myself a homework assignment and a timeline to get it done.

I think that's different between me and the governor. He's a big-idea person, but I'm not running for president. I'm running for California. This is where I was born, my children were born. This is a state that I love and I want to see it get better. 

You’re currently in a statewide position, but one that’s more limited than the governor. How did being State Superintendent prepare you to lead California?

The position just structurally doesn't have the tools to directly affect the things that our schools need. So I've had to learn how to work with the governor and the legislature to get things done. I've sponsored 20 bills every year for the last nearly eight years. I know how to get policy passed in the state. I know how to work with the key leaders in the state. I've watched as our schools have had to deal with disaster as their new normal, and I've had to step into the gap to help our schools get resources, to help families who've been impacted by fire. 

This role has really tested me, and having to lead our state during the pandemic was probably the toughest experience I've ever had professionally. But we've found ways to get things done, and certainly along the way it's given me some insights into how to lead in the state. 

California has faced high budget deficits in recent years, with dramatic fiscal swings at times.  How would you propose the state realistically spend within its means?

We have to rein in any place where there's been abuse, fraud or waste. There are some programs like our employment compensation programs… fraud is estimated to be in the billions. We need to revamp that whole program and make sure that it's available for those who experience a workforce injury, but to make sure that we have protection in place against those who would try and cheat the system. But we cannot make it just on trying to stamp out waste, fraud, and abuse.

This state has always struggled to have the appropriate amount of revenue. We get it from income tax; that means we've seen these huge fluctuations. During the pandemic, when you would think that people were struggling to work, the state had a record surplus. That means somebody made money off of the pandemic. Coming out of it until now, we have these huge deficits.

We need to balance out our budget and we need new revenue, and we cannot tax working people or middle-class people any more. My proposal is to tax billionaires in our state and then use that revenue for our needs. And, to give a tax credit to working people, middle-class people, so they have more money in their pocket every month to pay for the rising cost of gas, groceries, and housing.

You support some ambitious goals like free childcare, tuition-free college to public universities, single-payer healthcare. Fiscally, how are they feasible if the state is already in the red? 

If we provide a universal childcare program it will generate $22 billion for the state of California, essentially it pays for itself. Many other states have done this, it's time for California to create its own program so that kids have quality childcare. We know that's a great equalizer; it's also a great way to support our small businesses... that are childcare owners, largely women businesses and women of color, people who are right now [making] about minimum wage, we can do it better. 

A program like single-payer healthcare, when you begin to reduce the cost of overhead, now you're looking at a way to make a single-payer healthcare system manageable. And my free college program, we could start it as a pilot. You can go to college for four years for free, and when you graduate and you get a job, you start to pay some back. I call it “pay it forward.” 

We're the fourth-wealthiest economy in the world, but when it comes to taking care of higher education, healthcare, K-12 education, we're crying poor. And that's because we have to stabilize our revenue system and that's what I intend to do. 

You oppose many of the Trump Administration’s policies. Are there any avenues where you align with the president? 

I think it’s a fine line. On one hand I’ve been part of many lawsuits against this administration. I think his immigration policies are just reckless. When you think about the impacts that they're having on agriculture, on our hospitality, hotel system, on construction, it's supposed to be protecting us, but who are they protecting us from? I propose legislation that would help us to address this. I've supported approved legislation to keep ICE out of hospitals. Now, I am sponsoring legislation that would put a tax on any company that operates one of the seven ICE detention centers in our state. 

As governor, I think that we need to work on a way to create a pathway to citizenship for those who just want to work in our state and pay taxes. And in that way, I can work with the members of Congress to ultimately come up with a way to abolish ICE [and] replace it with a program that’s reasonable for protecting our borders and for promoting immigration. At the same time, create a pathway to citizenship for those who want to work here, rather than penalizing those who are actually working here, paying taxes and paying into our social security systems. 

And, I intend to work with the president on things like how we get more support from FEMA, for those who've been impacted by these fires. I believe if we align with governors of other states, we can get cooperation from the federal government to support us here in California.

You’re regularly polling at around 1-2% and haven’t been on the debate stage as much. There have been calls for lower-polling candidates to drop out. How do you respond to that? 

There's no need for anyone to silence the voices of those who are running for governor. The voters deserve to know every person who is running and to make their choice. And the reality is while polls are interesting and they are data points, polls don't elect anyone — the people of the state do. I know this because I have been in five elections already where they said I wouldn't win, where I was outpolled and outspent. I won all five of those elections. To your listeners I’m saying, “let’s make it six.”. 

Unlike many of the other candidates, I always talk about specifics around what we're going to do around housing, homelessness, and jobs. And someone who's got the lived experience of Californians. I grew up on public assistance, on the free lunch program, on food stamps, and a whole lot of government cheese. I went to college and worked minimum wage jobs. I understand the struggles that Californians are dealing with, and I'm imploring Californians to stick to your values. I'm not a billionaire and I'm not backed by corporate interests.

Have you been watching the debates? 

I have not. When those debates are on, if I'm not in it, I'm doing what I need to do and that means getting our message out. We've held our own events to speak to voters about important issues. I've been in some of the debates and the ones that I've been in, many sources have said “Tony Thurmond won that debate.” I know that we have a message that appeals to voters and we have something to offer — they just have to know who we are.

You can find all of our interviews with the candidates for governor here.