California Midterms Under AI’s Influence

Democrats won big this midterm season. They now control both the House and the Senate by huge margins, beating even the most optimistic polling. At the time of writing, Democrats hold 54 seats in the Senate and 253 in the House, the largest majority they’ve held since the 1990s. Midterm elections give voters a meaningful way to signal opposition to the current administration, and this “blue tsunami” has been a clear sign. Now, Democrats can use their power in both chambers to control floor agendas, approve the president’s cabinet and judicial nominations, and shape the U.S. budget. While Donald Trump can still veto and issue executive orders, this Blue Congress provides a check on power we have yet to see in this term. 

This midterm election also comes with an array of monumental firsts. Michigan’s Dr. Abdul El-Sayed becomes the first Muslim Senator. In Minnesota, Penny Flanagan is the first Indigenous woman elected to the U.S. Senate. Chris Pappas is the country’s first openly gay senator in New Hampshire. On the gubernatorial side, Keisha Lance Bottoms becomes the first Black female governor in U.S. History in Louisiana. Gina Hinojosa (Texas) and Xavier Becerra (California) are the first Latino governors in each state’s history. This election cycle has been nothing short of historic across the board. 

But despite Becerra’s victory, California seems to be moving in the opposite direction of the national shift toward progressivism. While the rest of the country votes for candidates prioritizing universal healthcare and labor rights, Californians seem to be adopting more moderate positions, a shift that could be attributed to the growing tech and corporate power in the state. Becerra himself was backed by a flood of corporate dollars from the likes of Meta, Chevron, Airbnb, and McDonald’s. Up and down the ballot, Californians voted against more progressive policy, a clear sign of the inescapable influence of Silicon Valley’s financial power. 

Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires, was dead as soon as polls opened. The tax would’ve applied to the worldwide assets of those who legally resided in the state on January 1, 2026, and would take effect in early 2027. Prop. 40 was supposed to raise “tens of billions” of dollars in tax revenue to remedy an estimated $30 billion in annual federal funding cuts due to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 90% of the tax revenue collected from Prop. 40 would’ve gone to healthcare services, on which California spends a whopping $200 million per year. 

Historically, fears of capital flight, where the wealthy desert high-tax regions, have hindered other wealth taxes, but they’re especially strong in California. Many fear that when billionaires leave, their businesses will too, leading to massive job losses and sharp declines in economic activity. California’s ultrawealthy heightened these fears by threatening to move to states with lower tax burdens. But tech and business leaders put their abundant resources to work to ensure they wouldn’t have to. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google with an estimated net worth of $214 billion, spent more than $100 million fighting Proposition 40.

Along with three other billionaires, whose net worths total $60 billion, Brin started Building a Better California, a “social work” nonprofit dedicated to supporting Propositions 41 and 42. Both of these propositions were intended to counter Prop. 40, blocking the tax if either got more votes than the original ballot measure. Building a Better California spent tens of millions on television advertising and social media campaigns in support of Prop. 41 and 42. Of the total $213 million spent on the 14 propositions on the ballot, more than half went toward efforts to block Proposition 40. 

In a June Substack post, Former Gov. Gavin Newsom cautioned against Prop. 40, instead advocating for a federal wealth tax to combat migration to lower-tax states. And while he provides some legitimate economic reasoning, there is certainly a political calculus that goes into this resistance. For instance, this opposition could be an attempt to stay in the good graces of billionaires, potential donors, as a part of the run-up to his presidential campaign. This could also be another move for Newsom to distance himself from progressive democrats and rebrand as a centrist. Becerra, too, expressed his opposition with little justification, potentially in an effort to retain his corporate backing. 

The influence of tech and AI interests is not limited to statewide elections. In San Francisco, Newsom’s hometown that once served as a pillar of leftist and counter-cultural politics, demographics seem to be making a moderate shift (well, moderate for California). In 2026, San Francisco approved three of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s local ballot measures that consolidate governing power in the mayor’s office and reduce legislative checks and balances. These propositions were supported by nearly $14 million from Lurie’s wealthy allies, including some who also contributed to Building a Better California. His 2024 mayoral campaign was supported by $164 million, a combination of his own finances and that of his tech allies.

Corporate money was also apparent in San Francisco’s Congressional race. Both candidates, Scott Wiener and Connie Chan, have had long political careers and are familiar faces in San Francisco. In October, Wiener, a member of the California State Senate, received a $3 million donation from an Anthropic-backed advocacy group. Earlier this year, his team put out a Claude-powered chatbot acting as Chan, intending to criticize her policy record, but instead taking jabs at her accent and citizenship. His win on Tuesday is a sign of the AI- and corporation-dominant times sweeping through California. 

Money in politics is not a new issue, but as this money and influence concentrate in a handful of people, democracy begins to deteriorate in California. While the rest of the country votes toward broader regulations on AI and working-class protections, Californians are faced with unequal representation, decreasing transparency, and profit-seeking behaviors from politicians who are meant to serve them. 

But hope is not lost. Los Angeles just elected Nithya Raman, a DSA-backed candidate dedicated to expanding housing access and protecting immigrants, as its next mayor. Similarly, Jane Kim was just elected as California’s Insurance Commissioner. Endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, Kim pledges to lower costs and expand coverage, holding insurance companies accountable for unjust price hikes and denial of valid claims. These candidates are not alone in their resistance to tech and corporate influence, a trend that will hopefully spread continually despite the rise of AI. California and the rest of the nation are moving in an exciting direction. But money from AI and tech companies is growing as an ever-present threat to our democracy, something that we, as voters, must be hypervigilant about in elections and our everyday lives.

Kalli Chan is a News Writer/Copy Editor for The Triton.