Google and Meta spent big this election cycle. Is Big Tech trying to ‘buy the legislature’?

In summary

Tech interests have spent tens of millions of dollars this year on state legislative races alone. Industry advocates say they want to protect innovation from overregulation.

Big Tech has proven a big spender in this year’s election cycle.

Google, Meta, and other tech interests account for at least 20% of all the contributions made to outside groups spending on legislative races, according to a CalMatters analysis of campaign finance disclosures.

Tech companies are looking to push back at a growing volume of state regulations they say could stifle the industry. Some companies, like Facebook owner Meta, spent record sums on lobbying last year as tech interests looked to temper regulation on artificial intelligence and shape a half dozen data center bills. 

Tech money substantially or in part funded half of the top 10 spenders among political action committees that have sought to influence the state’s legislative races. Big donors to the largest independent expenditure groups include Google, Meta, Uber, cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen and Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

Critics argue the tech spending is an attempt to buy the California Legislature. The industry says tech companies are just advocating for themselves like any other interest group. 

The total amount spent on California Assembly and Senate races rose to more than $128 million this year, as of Oct. 29, compared to $74.2 million in 2022, the last non-presidential election year, and nearly $100 million in 2024.

Independent expenditures for things like advertising and direct mail flyers have become a key source of political spending because they are not subject to state spending limits like candidate donations are. Individuals can give up to $5,900 per election to a candidate running for the Legislature. Independent expenditures are not allowed to coordinate with candidates’ campaigns on advertising.

Nationwide, pro-AI super PACs have spent more than $50 million to influence 46 congressional races this year, supporting Democrats and Republicans alike, according to the New York Times. Tesla founder Elon Musk alone has reportedly spent more than $350 million to support Republicans in the midterm elections, more than any other donor.

Big spenders

CalMatters found the independent committee spending the most on legislative races in California so far this year is  from tech investor Tim Draper and Larsen. The committee, GROW California, has spent more than $23 million trying to offset the influence of labor unions, who last month saw seven laws from a package of nine bills they backed to protect workers from AI signed into law. The group’s stated goal is to influence California politics for the next decade.

The second-largest funder of such groups is California Leads, a committee bankrolled primarily by Google and Meta, which has spent nearly $152 million this year in races including the reelection campaign of Republican Inland Empire Assemblymember Greg Wallis.

The two groups have also backed a Democratic Assembly candidate in Marin County, Eric Lucan; a Democratic Senate candidate in Los Angeles, Sara Hernandez; and another Democratic Senate candidate in Los Angeles, Brian Goldsmith. Lucan and Hernandez both defeated union-backed candidates in the primary. Hernandez was criticized by her general election opponent Sarah Rascón, who is endorsed by Democratic Socialists, for taking money from tech billionaires as part of what Rascón said is a plan to buy an Assembly seat. Hernandez did not respond to a request for comment.

Goldsmith told CalMatters he has no idea why tech interests are supporting his campaign. Asked about tech’s independent expenditures this year in general, he endorsed campaign finance reform “to get special interest money out of politics.”

“Because Trump has abdicated responsibility, it’s up to individual states to responsibly regulate tech — and California should lead the way,” Goldsmith said. “I don’t want to push these companies and jobs to Texas or Tennessee, but I will hold them to high standards. I strongly believe we can do both.”

Other major spenders are groups backed by Meta and Uber.

Meta’s group, Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across (META) California, spent $1.3 million backing Democratic former Palantir executive Scott Sakakihara in a Senate district near Silicon Valley.

Two committees funded largely by Meta and Google spent more than 90% of the independent expenditures that went to support Democrat Andrae Gonzales, who is running for Assembly in Kern County. Gonzalez is running for an open seat in a district that is still blue but had the biggest swing to the right of any Assembly district in California in the 2024 presidential election, according to California Target Book. His primary opponent, Ana Palacio, a Democrat supported by unions, saw nearly $800,000 in opposition spending, more than 40% of which came from tech interests.

The two tech-giant-funded committees also accounted for 63% of the independent expenditures that went to support Democrat Annalisa Perea in an open Fresno Assembly district. In the primary she defeated Sandra Celedon, a Democrat supported by healthcare unions and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

Perea and Gonzalez did not respond to questions from CalMatters. 

Sakakihara, the former Palantir executive, did not respond to questions about how he speaks to voters about tech companies that support his candidacy, but said in a statement that tech has both created incredible economic growth and serious consequences across society that warrant stricter scrutiny and government action.

JOBSPAC, an independent expenditure group organized by the California Chamber of Commerce, has received $3 million from Brin, $2.5 million from Meta, nearly $1 million from Google, and hundreds of thousands of dollars from companies including Amazon, and Airbnb. Landlords, major consulting firms and McDonald’s also gave money to JOBSPAC.

Legislative Action PAC, whose mission is to elect Republicans, received more than $500,000 from business interests including Airbnb, Amazon, DoorDash, Meta and Uber.

What tech wants

In some ways, the tech industry’s campaign spending is comparable to those of other interest groups, just bigger.

Stephen Aguilar, who studies AI in education at the University of Southern California, said that tech is to California what oil is to Texas. To Aguilar, tech companies spending big to protect their interests is “what every industry does, and for better or worse, that’s how our political system is settled since Citizens United,” the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door for unlimited independent expenditures.

Industry advocates have a similar take. Robert Singleton, director of policy and public affairs for national tech policy lobby Chamber of Progress, said Silicon Valley is just playing catch up.

“Unless we start spending money we’re going to continue to get hundreds of bills every year taking aim at new industries.”

Robert Singleton, Chamber of Progress, a national tech policy lobby

“Folks in the industry are realizing that unless we start spending money we’re going to continue to get hundreds of bills every year taking aim at new industries,” he said.

Tech interests, he said, want to support moderate and pragmatic candidates who, in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, understand the benefits of the industry to the California economy, innovation and tax revenue.

“New technologies need some breathing room,” Singleton added. “If California lawmakers keep piling new rules onto companies before they’ve even had a chance to get off the ground, they risk overregulation, which could be a loss for California’s competitive edge, and thus tax revenue and jobs.”

Tech’s focus on California may be especially intense because Congress has proven reluctant to regulate the industry at the federal level. “State legislatures are realistically the only place where AI policy is going to get made over the next two to three years,” said Catherine Bracy, executive director of Tech Equity Action, a group that tracks tech money flowing into campaigns. California continues to pass more AI regulation than any other state.

Critics like Bracy and Long Beach Democratic Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal think the industry is trying to essentially buy the Legislature.

But some also say the industry has stirred up such a fierce public backlash that its spending could be counterproductive.

Jeremy Mack, executive director of Phoenix Project, which tracks and criticizes the influence of tech money in San Francisco Bay Area politics, noted that GROW California has had strong initial results, with 11 out of 12 of its candidates successfully advancing to the general election. But citing the souring of public attitudes about groups like GROW SF in San Francisco, Mack said the tide is bound to turn.

“The shelf life for these organizations is not long as they become more toxic and reviled for their egregious spending,” he said.

One group, Guardrails Alliance, is actively trying to spark the backlash. Last week the group invested nearly $2 million in ads to shame candidates who took money from pro-AI super PAC Leading the Future, including Rep. Jimmy Gomez, a Los Angeles-area Democrat. 

“The tech industry has just never seen a problem that they didn’t think they could solve by throwing more money at it,” said Guardrails Alliance’s political director, Charlie Blaettler.

Lowenthal, the Long Beach assemblymember, said the tech industry is throwing around its money to build a broad influence base that he sees as pernicious.

“I saw money being doled out in the primaries for state legislative races to candidates that have never taken positions on tech, and it sure feels like there’s a concerted effort to buy the Legislature,” he said.

Lowenthal has good reason to keep an eye on the industry’s efforts: He has coauthored bills to strengthen digital privacy laws and penalize social media companies that injure children.

In February Lowenthal said that “we have one, two, three years before this money gets so deeply entrenched with the current crop of elected officials that it can be devastating to an entire generation.”

Earlier this month, Lowenthal warned that California will be a state controlled by tech companies in a few years.

“That amount of money dwarfs any other sector or special interest by a long shot, and I think it’s just the beginning,” he said of the industry’s spending.

Reporters Natasha Uzcátegui-Liggett and Kate Li contributed to this reporting.