Four hundred million dollars. That’s roughly what’s been spent on a primary election that, until about a week ago, I was actively ignoring.

In my defense, the flyers aren’t helping. They’re under my door, on my windshield, jammed in my mailbox — and somehow none have convinced me to care about California’s June 2 primary. It feels like we’ve been hearing about the governor’s race since Newsom’s first term, and, reader, I confess: I’d given myself permission to check out.

But voting day is around the corner. As the kids say: It’s time to lock in.

What I’ve picked up through headline osmosis is that a hell of a lot of money is changing hands. The words “unprecedented” and “billionaire bonanza” come to mind. There are a million voter guides that’ll tell you where candidates stand and what the propositions would do — some people are even asking LLMs. (Grok, as you might guess, is highly opinionated). But one thing you won’t find in a voter guide is the money behind everything. Who’s bankrolling each candidate and cause? And what does that tell us about how they’d govern?

That’s what we get into in this week’s episode of “PST,” with senior politics reporter Hannah Wiley, wealth and power reporter Emily Shugerman, and USF politics professor Keally McBride.

Here are eight takeaways from our conversation.

Tom Steyer’s $200-million primary campaign gamble.

Recent polling has Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton leading the gubernatorial field, which would leave Steyer in third — and under California’s top-two primary system, out of the November general election. The bronze, in this case, would come with a record-breaking price tag: more than $200 million of Steyer’s own money. The Associated Press reports it’s the most expensive political advertising campaign in the U.S. this year. 

A Steyer loss would mirror Meg Whitman’s failed gubernatorial campaign. The former Hewlett-Packard CEO spent $144 million of her own money178.5 million in 2010.

Silicon Valley billionaires are furious about the Billionaire Tax Act.

If it makes the November ballot and passes, the Billionaire Tax Act would impose a one-time 5% state tax on the net worth of California’s richest individuals. The measure is not on Tuesday’s ballot — but its shadow is shaping where election money is flowing.

The most prominent group fighting it is Building a Better California, whose donors include Google cofounder Sergey Brin (who has since moved to Nevada to avoid the tax), former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, former Sequoia partner and Standard chairman Michael Moritz, Ripple cofounder Chris Larsen, and venture capitalist John Doerr.

Together, they’ve raised more than $100 million to defeat it.

The Billionaire Tax Act isn’t on the ballot — yet. But it could shape politics going forward.

McBride, who closely follows the role of money in politics, says that if the measure makes the November ballot and passes, it would mark “a turning point in American politics” — especially given the sheer amount of opposition cash flooding in to stop it.

“That is not the same as saying that I think the billionaire’s tax is gonna really bail out California’s budgetary holes,” McBride says. “The likelihood that the measure’s supporters are gonna be able to collect on this is really, really slim. However, it does send a strong message that morally, we do not agree with billionaires holding all the resources. We think there should be more sharing.”

San Francisco’s Prop. C and Prop. D: The battle over business taxes.

There are two competing tax propositions on the ballot for San Francisco residents.

Because of its tax proposals for local businesses, Prop. C is backed by tech and business groups. Meanwhile, labor groups are pushing for Prop. D, which would raise taxes on companies whose chief executives make 100 times more than their median employee.

Prop. C defenders, who have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars each, include Google’s Brin, The Standard’s Moritz, Ripple’s Larsen, and DoorDash CEO Tony Xu. 

Prop. D supporters include labor groups, who have raised about $2.5 million, and congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti, who gave $600,000.

Why tech titans are backing tech critic Sen. Scott Wiener over former tech worker Saikat Chakrabarti.

Chakrabarti made his millions as a founding Stripe engineer. But his tech past isn’t protecting him from attack ads paid for by his peers. 

A group called Abundant Future is behind mailers criticizing the former AOC chief of staff in favor of his opponent, state Sen. Scott Wiener. Abundant Future backers include tech titans like Larsen, Tan, and Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman. The group has also received $500,000 from an Anthropic-sponsored PAC called Public First Action. 

This pro-Wiener support is ironic considering the senator’s role in advocating for strict AI regulations statewide. But the tech industry seemingly views Wiener as the moderate choice in the race, compared with Chakrabarti and candidate Connie Chan.

Voters used to see themselves as “pre-rich.” Now they’re highly critical of the wealthy wielding power.

McBride says Americans long identified as “pre-rich” — they assumed that one day, perhaps soon, they’d be wealthy themselves. That assumption made people reluctant to support taxes they imagined might one day fall on them. But that mindset is shifting, and it’s changing how voters engage politically.

Recent polling shows 84% of Americans think wealthy people have too much power.

“Now in some quarters, wealth is starting to be suspicious,” McBride says. “Like, ‘Oh, if you’re getting money from those people that I don’t like, then you must be getting set up to do things that I don’t want you to do.’”

All of this spending might not even matter. 

There’s something to be said for the access wealth buys — a seat at closed-door meetings, an open line to influential leaders. But as McBride notes, money doesn’t necessarily move voters.

“Money can’t change people’s minds,” she says. “We’ve had elections across the country where underdog candidates are able to win, even in the face of being insanely out-raised in terms of campaign funds — like [New York City Mayor Zohran] Mamdani.

“One of the lessons of 2026 is that almost nothing can beat volunteer door-knocking,” she adds. “If you can turn out a lot of people to talk to their neighbors passionately and articulately about their positions and their candidate, that turns out to be still the true magic behind American politics.”