As Governor Gavin Newsom wraps up his second term as California’s governor, a packed field of candidates has set their eyes on the state’s top executive seat. In a race that carries immense implications for power and influence, not just in California but nationwide, candidates must prove they are ready to reshape the future of one of America’s most-watched states. In this column, I aim not only to examine the candidates running but to unpack their campaigns and policies, offering a holistic assessment of their ability to govern the Golden State. This installment focuses on businessman Tom Steyer’s campaign.
“California needs a governor who will stand firm, fight back, and protect every community. Tom Steyer is that leader, and he is exactly who we need as our next governor,” said California State Senator Caroline Menjivar, in an endorsement of Steyer. As a strong advocate for immigrant resources, Menjivar’s priorities closely align with Steyer’s equity-focused approach for expanding opportunities in California.
Born into a wealthy family and later becoming a billionaire hedge fund manager through founding Fallaron Capital Management in 1986, Steyer brings a finance-driven background to his campaign for governor. A notable alumnus of Yale University and Stanford University, he then pivoted to environmental advocacy, where he has since become the founding president of NextGen Climate and its associated political action committee (PAC) NextGen Climate Action Committee. After a brief bid for the presidency in 2020, he is now running for California governor because he believes Californians can “no longer afford to live here,” on a platform of building more affordable housing, lowering electric bills, and closing corporate tax loopholes, among other issues. He stakes his campaign on being able to “get things done” that the “usual politicians” are unable to deliver on. While his campaign issues seem rooted in more than just broad ideological commitments, can Tom Steyer successfully translate his advocacy background into effective statewide executive leadership?
Steyer’s political activism is informed by his experience in corporate finance. After leaving Farallon Capital Management, he founded Beneficial State Bank, which focuses on providing commercial loans to underserved communities and small businesses. He has also founded Galvanize Climate Solutions, a climate-focused investment firm that gains money from a transition to sustainable energy. Steyer has even worked as chair on current Governor Gavin Newsom’s task force to recover the state’s economy after COVID-19. Taken together, these endeavors suggest that Steyer has been able to translate his economic background into meaningful political action. However, translating this approach into effective leadership at the scale of the state of California presents a significantly greater challenge.
Steyer has demonstrated a consistent commitment to climate-focused policy through efforts such as restoring California’s cap-and-trade program, which limits greenhouse gas emissions from major polluters. He also spent $30 million supporting Proposition 39, which closed a corporate tax loophole and redirected funds toward energy-efficiency upgrades that benefited the greater community. He has even pledged in the past to not accept money from fossil fuel companies toward his campaign, emphasizing his commitment to his pro-climate stance and his confidence in the strength of his policies.
These policies include implementing green solutions that would make electricity cheaper, which Steyer affirms would “make life more affordable for all Californians.” He specifies that he would reach this goal by connecting power immediately, requiring utilities to meet interconnection deadlines, and imposing penalties when they fail. While I appreciate the specificity of many of Steyer’s policy proposals, I question whether some of his broader commitments, such as his pledge to “make polluters pay,” are supported by sufficiently detailed implementation strategies. Many candidates, including Katie Porter, make similar promises. However, the challenge, I believe, lies in explaining how large corporations can be compelled to comply within the regulatory framework he proposes for California. Given Steyer’s background working within major financial institutions, it is reasonable to ask how he plans to translate his insider knowledge of corporate systems into effective enforcement tools that would allow his policies to succeed. Clarifying how these priorities would also translate into concrete funding changes would help voters evaluate their feasibility.
In contrast to some of his broader ideas toward making big actors pay, Steyer’s plan for building more housing in California is more established. He points to concrete housing initiatives, including his support for SB 79, which prioritizes building housing near transit systems, and his financing of “over 17,000 affordable housing units,” strengthening his credibility in this area. Similar to Porter, he plans to work with unions to accomplish his goals, also investing in workforce training to further his vision of creating a more accessible California. He is also coming after billionaires through his proposed closing of a billionaire-friendly tax break he calls “the Trump Tax Loophole.” Though Steyer has positioned himself as a critic of tax loopholes benefiting wealthy individuals and large corporations, his own status as a billionaire creates a tension between his policy goals and his economic background. Whether his proposal shows a shift in perspective or a strategic use of insider knowledge to seek change will be up for voters to decide at the primary election in June.
This tension is also reflected in how his campaign is financed. As a billionaire himself, Steyer’s campaign is almost entirely self-funded through money earned from his investment firms, in contrast to Porter’s refusal of corporate donations to reinforce her campaign’s independence from corporate interests. His failed run for President in 2020 on similar issues involved spending over $150 million on advertisements alone. While overly ambitious, that kind of enterprise might be exactly what California needs right now. Steyer’s reliance on self-funding allows him to avoid traditional corporate campaign contributions, though his investments in climate-focused firms such as Galvanize Climate Solutions create a potential financial conflict of interest with the policies he promotes.
Beyond campaign financing, Steyer has also held advisory roles within California government, including his appointment as co-chair of a COVID-19 economic recovery task force and Chief Advisor on Business and Jobs Recovery under Governor Newsom. These roles signal his experience working alongside the executive branch in California, as well as an understanding of the role of Governor. However, this task force was short-lived and faced criticism from business leaders who believed it was not as carefully planned as it could have been. Steyer, who invested heavily in this task force, went so far as to involve his PAC NextGen in staffing most of the force, despite not being paid for his work there and doing it mainly to “get things done and get information organized as quickly as possible.” While Steyer’s involvement in the task force demonstrates a willingness to participate directly in problem-solving efforts, its limited impact questions whether this experience translates into the level of effectiveness — at the executive level — required to lead California.
Steyer’s other controversies have been mainly linked to his hedge fund past, with students from his own alma mater, Stanford University, protesting against the school’s investments in Fallaron Capital. The protesters cited Steyer’s hypocrisy as a climate advocate, while his company funded coal mining companies and invested in for-profit prisons. After the criticism, Steyer moved for divestment from these areas in his company as well as for Stanford itself to divest from fossil fuels, but his past investments have followed him negatively through his political career. In contrast to Porter’s tendency to stick to her policy positions even in the face of opposition, his adaptability may suggest a more flexible — but potentially less predictable — leadership style. At the same time, Steyer has increasingly positioned himself as a critic of powerful and environmentally harmful corporations and billionaires, even spending around $20 million on anti-Trump ads in his “Need to Impeach” campaign. However, unlike other Democratic candidates, while he does mention Trump’s policies in his assessment of California, he does not base his campaign on being anti-Trump, and instead trusts that his policies will stand on their own without the need to rile up Democrats against who many perceive as a threat.
This confidence in his policies, actionable plans, and economic background might prove to be just what California needs to improve its economy and environmental impact. However, a lack of focus on other policy areas and a privileged elite financial background raise questions about whether he fully captures the breadth of challenges faced by more economically diverse communities across the state. This tension ultimately leads to a broader question of his governing: should California be led as a business that prioritizes efficiency and economic growth, or does effective leadership require a more holistic understanding of the state’s social and economic inequalities? Ultimately, the question isn’t about whether his approach is effective but whether it truly represents California as a whole.
