Inquirer Investigation: Four donors supplied nearly all of the $62 million raised by three tech-funded committees in California’s legislative races

Campaign filings show Chris Larsen, Tim Draper, Meta and Google funded nearly all of Grow California, California Leads and Meta’s own committee; here is where the money went, race by race, and what the committees say they want.

By Graham Ostrowski

Three independent-expenditure committees financed by technology companies and investors raised $62.2 million for California’s 2026 legislative elections through Oct. 17. Nearly all of it, $62.0 million, or 99.7 percent, came from four sources: the Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen, the venture capitalist Tim Draper, Meta Platforms and Google.

That is the central finding of an Inquirer review of the committees’ Form 460 campaign statements filed with the California Secretary of State, as compiled by CalAccess Runway, a public site built from the state’s filings. The three committees are Grow California, California Leads and Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California, which calls itself META California.

Through Oct. 17, the last full reporting period before the Nov. 3 election, the three had spent about $51 million. Late spending reported afterward on 24-hour reports is not included in those totals. CalMatters reported that by the end of the campaign Grow California had spent about $24 million and California Leads about $17 million, together roughly 30 percent of all independent expenditures in legislative races in a record year for political spending.

Independent-expenditure committees may raise and spend unlimited sums to support or oppose candidates, provided they do not coordinate with the campaigns they help. Contributions directly to legislative candidates, by contrast, are capped by state law.

The ledger, committee by committee

Grow California (committee ID 1483808) reported raising $26,027,965 and spending $23,481,073 in the 2025-26 cycle through Oct. 17. Its filings list four donors:

• Christian (Chris) Larsen: $17,966,437 in five contributions, the last on Aug. 10, 2026, or 69 percent of the total.
• Timothy Draper: $8,000,000 in two contributions, the last on July 9.
• Garry’s List Action: $35,000, on May 28.
• California Dental Association PAC: $26,527, on Aug. 21.

The committee’s most recent statement, filed Oct. 22 and covering July 1 through Oct. 17, reported $5,992,965 in receipts.

California Leads (committee ID 1478581) reported raising $19,200,140 and spending $17,410,708. Google and its affiliated entities gave $13 million in three entries, including $8 million in two contributions through Sept. 21, 2026. Meta Platforms gave $6.05 million, including $1 million on Aug. 28. The remaining donors were SV Angel Management ($100,000), Housing Providers for Responsible Solutions ($29,438) and Keep California Golden ($20,701).

META California (committee ID 1483390) reported one donor, Meta Platforms, which gave a net $17 million after a $3 million return recorded in the committee’s filings. Through Oct. 17 it had spent $10.07 million and held about $6.9 million in net receipts that had not been spent. CalMatters reported that $2.6 million of its spending went to five Democratic legislative campaigns.

Combined, Meta supplied about $23.05 million across two committees, Mr. Larsen about $17.97 million, Google $13 million and Mr. Draper $8 million. Every other donor to the three committees together gave about $212,000.

What the committees say they want

The committees describe their aims differently.

Grow California and California Leads say they are not advocating for any particular issue. “We’re trying to make a minority of the ideologues on both sides,” Shaudi Fulp, a strategist for Grow California, told CalMatters. “Our whole goal is that legislators are not a rubber stamp for any special interest — whether it’s tech, whether it’s public sector labor, whether it’s business.”

California Leads said it was pleased with the outcome. “We are proud to see so many Leads backed candidates joining the California Legislature next year, and we aren’t taking our foot off the gas for 2028,” Nathan Click, a strategist for the committee, said in a statement to CalMatters. The committee also backed several Republicans who lost, including Sen. Tony Strickland and Assemblyman Greg Wallis, according to CalMatters.

META California’s stated goal is to elect candidates receptive to “AI innovation,” according to CalMatters.

Mr. Larsen has also said publicly that he favors stricter limits on the industry in at least one area. He told KQED in October that he wants the state to “stop all new building” of data centers until there are more regulations on artificial intelligence.

Grow California, through Alex Tourk of Ground Floor Public Affairs, said it would not comment for this article. The Fair Political Practices Commission’s press office did not respond to a request for comment.

Race by race

The filings show how much each committee raised; the clearest picture of where the money landed comes from race-level reporting by CalMatters, The Los Angeles Times and KQED, which drew on the committees’ independent-expenditure reports. CalMatters counted at least nine business-backed Democrats headed to the Capitol after Silicon Valley companies and investors spent at least $50 million on legislative races. All results below are unofficial until the secretary of state certifies them on Dec. 11.

Assembly District 67 (parts of Orange and Los Angeles counties). The race was decided in practice in the June primary. Between April 9 and June 2, outside groups spent $9.2 million attacking Ada Briceño, a labor leader endorsed by the California Democratic Party, and promoting Mark Pulido, a Cerritos councilman, with most of the money from Airbnb, Meta, Google and Mr. Larsen, CalMatters reported. Mr. Pulido’s campaign spent about $600,000; two regional cardrooms spent $500,000 for Ms. Briceño, who did not advance to the general election. “He made it past the primary because of the $10 million that was spent against me,” she told CalMatters. In the general election, Mr. Pulido is leading Paulo Morales by a wide margin in the unofficial count. His campaign did not respond to CalMatters.

Senate District 26 (Los Angeles County). Grow California spent $4.6 million supporting Sara Hernandez, an attorney, in the race to succeed Sen. María Elena Durazo. Independent spending for Ms. Hernandez totaled about $9 million, compared with about $450,000 by committees backed by the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters for her Democratic rival, Sarah Rascón, according to CalMatters. Ms. Hernandez leads in the unofficial count. She has said her own campaign did not accept money from crypto, big tech or AI companies. “If it’s not from me, I didn’t approve it. Don’t rope me in with outside money,” she wrote on Instagram in September. “It was David and Goliath,” Ms. Rascón said. “My Goliath was these outside tech corporate interests.”

Assembly District 12 (Marin and Sonoma counties). The largest exception. Grow California spent nearly $4 million in the race, KQED reported, much of it against Jackie Elward, a Rohnert Park councilwoman who had called for moratoriums on “anything related to AI.” Californians United for Progress, a committee funded by labor unions including the California Labor Federation and the SEIU California State Council, spent nearly $2 million for her. The Associated Press called the race for Ms. Elward on Tuesday; her opponent, Marin County Supervisor Eric Lucan, conceded and had disavowed the outside spending. “We congratulate Assemblymember-elect Elward, and we look forward to working with her,” Ms. Fulp told KQED.

META California’s candidates. Of the committee’s $2.6 million in legislative spending, most went to Scott Sakakihara, a former Palantir Technologies executive who is now a senator-elect, according to CalMatters. It also backed two incoming Assembly members, Andrae Gonzales and Annalisa Perea.

Across 16 other legislative races, Grow California and California Leads together spent nearly $39 million, backing mostly moderate, business-friendly candidates, KQED reported.

The other side of the ledger

The tech committees were not the only outside spenders. Labor-backed committees, including Californians United for Progress and committees financed by the California Nurses Association, spent millions in the same districts, though in the races examined here generally far less per race. TechEquity Action, the political arm of an Oakland nonprofit that advocates for regulation of the tech industry, ran a $1 million statewide advertising campaign pointing voters to where the tech money was going.

“When they started announcing within the last year that they were going to be spending this money at the state level, that really freaked us out,” Catherine Bracy, TechEquity’s chief executive, told CalMatters.

Analysts disagree about what the money buys. David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University, said the spending was an effort by large technology companies to get ahead of public skepticism about data centers and artificial intelligence. “Big Tech is trying to preempt what should be a difficult regulatory environment,” he told CalMatters. In the North Bay, he said, early and uncoordinated spending raised Ms. Elward’s name recognition instead.

Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at UC Riverside, cautioned against assuming that donors dictate votes. Lawmakers “don’t just need money, they need to do things that will support the district or help the district,” he said. “One billionaire isn’t the same as 100,000 votes.”

Why it matters for California

The incoming class will take up questions in which the donors have direct stakes: how to regulate artificial intelligence, where and under what terms data centers may be built, privacy rules for online platforms and, for some, the treatment of digital assets. The Legislature’s choices often set de facto national standards because so many of the affected companies are based in California.

Independent expenditures are legal and must be disclosed, and the donors’ identities are on file for anyone to read, which is how this accounting was possible. The committees’ own statements emphasize moderation and a Legislature less beholden to any single interest, including organized labor, which has long been among the largest outside spenders in Sacramento.

What the filings establish is concentration. In a state of 39 million people, almost all of the money behind three of the most active committees of the 2026 legislative cycle came from two companies and two men. How the new legislators vote on the issues those donors care about will be a matter of public record, and The Inquirer will track it.

How we did this

The Inquirer reviewed the committees’ Form 460 recipient-committee statements for the 2025-26 cycle, covering activity through Oct. 17, 2026, as presented by CalAccess Runway, which is built from California Secretary of State filings. Totals are as reported by the committees and may change with amendments or late filings. Committee IDs: Grow California 1483808, California Leads 1478581, META California 1483390. Race-level spending figures are from CalMatters, The Los Angeles Times and KQED, as attributed. Election results are unofficial until certification.