Becerra is wobbling on health care and ethics right as Tom Steyer’s checkbook starts bending this governor’s race around him.
This is California Governor's Race. Today: Becerra’s messy reset, Steyer’s big-money surge, and why another debate still left the field looking unsettled.
Money talks. Candidates squirm.
Exactly. And let’s start with Becerra trying to calm down the doctors without setting off the left.
From KQED:
Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra has softened his support for a single-payer healthcare system as he secures endorsements in his bid to be California’s next governor, most recently from the powerful doctors’ group, the California Medical Association, which officially backed him this week.
The former health secretary under President Joe Biden has advocated for government-run healthcare since he was a congressman thirty years ago.
That’s a real move. When your brand includes decades of support for government-run health care, saying you have “other priorities” starts to sound a lot like backing away.
Over on Reddit, r/politics put it this way:
Congratulations, Tom Steyer on becoming the next governor. This was so unsurprising if you knew his House record lmao
Savage, but you can hear the campaign read in there. Becerra has always had that institutional, pragmatic streak, and single payer was never going to be a smooth ride with the doctors’ lobby. Calling it for Steyer already is way too early. But Becerra just made the contrast easier for him.
On r/MedicareForAll, one commenter said:
Doctors WANT Medicare for all, it will make our jobs easier, our patients healthier, and cut costs across the board, enabling us to be paid appropriately for our knowledge and work. Insurance companies try to make you believe that doctors are the thing that costs the most money, but its a lie. Healthcare corporations, insurances, hospital systems, PBMs and all the other profit makers that insert themselves into the doctor-patient relationship are what make our Healthcare expensive. Medicare for…
I’d separate rank-and-file doctors from the CMA as a political institution, because those are not always the same crowd. But the larger frustration makes sense. If the fight is about insurers, PBMs, and administrative drag, Becerra’s pullback makes single-payer supporters feel like the lobby won before the policy fight even started.
Also on r/MedicareForAll:
Dude is speedrunning losing all the momentum the Swalwell dropout gave him.
The timing is rough. Swalwell’s exit gave Becerra some breathing room, and instead of using it to lock down progressives, he turned one of his oldest policy credentials into a trust issue.
From Ashley Zavala at KCRA:
Bearstar Strategies, a political firm linked to individuals accused of stealing campaign funds from Xavier Becerra, is now supporting his bid for California governor. The firm, which was listed as part of The Collaborative, allegedly used their LLC, which used nearly a quarter of a million dollars from one of the candidate's campaign accounts to transfer funds to his long-time chief of staff, Sean McCluskie, and Gavin Newsom.
That is exactly the kind of proximity a candidate does not want when he’s trying to be the steady, above-the-fray option. Even if Becerra says he was the victim here, voters hear “campaign money,” “insiders,” and “governor’s race,” and the red flag goes right up.
From Azriel Castaneda at City Times:
California gubernatorial candidate and billionaire Tom Steyer has used his wealth and resources coming from both his business and non-profit experience to support families, students and middle to lower class Californians.
That includes Beneficial State Bank, TomKat Ranch, NextGen America, NextGen Policy, and The Giving Pledge, all of which Steyer believes have set him up to run the fourth-largest economy in the world.
Steyer’s bet is pretty clear: make the money look like executive experience, not baggage. In California, that can work. But voters have heard rich candidates sell competence before.
Over on Reddit, r/California_Politics had this reaction:
Good. Seems like a good guy. Ardent environmentalist for a long time, gave most of his money away. Major philanthropist for years now. And he actually seems to want to make a difference. He's got my vote.
That is the Steyer image in one neat package: billionaire, yes, but green billionaire. Donor, organizer, philanthropist. The voter question is whether that résumé turns into governing a very unruly state, not just funding causes at scale.
Also on r/California_Politics, another commenter put it this way:
He’s proposed a no cap tax incentive for California’s film industry. He has my vote.
At least that’s a concrete policy reason, not just vibes. But an uncapped film tax incentive still needs a hard look: who gets paid, what jobs actually get created, and whether California is just bidding against Georgia and New York with public money.
From Sacramento Bee:
Lee is one of seven Democratic lawmakers who have endorsed Steyer for governor and received money from Chevron or committees that get money from the oil company. The number shows how ubiquitous Chevron, like many large corporations, is in funding campaigns in California, and how lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have benefited from the company’s largesse.
This is the campaign-finance mud puddle in one sentence: everyone says they hate oil money, and somehow oil money is still everywhere.
Over on Reddit, one r/California commenter put it this way:
Chevron gives to everybody, hoping that whomever wins will hear them. We need to get big corporate money out of politics but until then, black listing candidates who “took money from Chevron “ is a cheap shot and ultimately pointless.
I mostly buy this. Chevron money in California politics is less a smoking gun than a sprinkler system. Still, if a campaign wants to use Chevron as a purity test, it has to be ready for reporters to trace the money through every PAC and caucus fund.
Another r/California commenter said:
so…Chevron gives to PACs who happen to give to Alex Lee who is supporting Tom Steyer. Jesus Christ, talk about an astronomical reach.
The line from Chevron PACs to Alex Lee to Steyer is definitely weaker than a candidate cashing a Chevron check. But the story is less “gotcha, Steyer” and more “look how hard it is to stay clean in California’s campaign-finance plumbing.”
And over on r/California, another commenter added:
Find someone else who rails against Chevron money….
It’s a funny jab, because truly spotless anti-Chevron messengers are rare in Sacramento. I’d rather judge candidates by their votes, disclosures, and policy commitments than pretend anyone can float above the money system.
From The Ukiah Daily Journal:
If voters tuned in to learn something about how the would-be governors would actually govern, they were given thin gruel at best. The candidates occasionally sneaked in references to what they had done prior to running for governor, but they said little about what they would do as governor, and then only when the panelists specifically sought that information.
That’s the problem with these cattle-call debates: plenty of blame, very little sense of how anyone would govern. If California voters still can’t tell who would actually run the state differently, the format did not help them.
You’ll find links to every story we mentioned today in the show notes. If one caught your ear, they’re there for a closer read.
That’s California Governor’s Race for today. Thanks for listening, and we’ll be back with you tomorrow. This is a Lantern Podcast.