Correction (March 12, 2026): An earlier version of this post understated fundraising totals for several candidates because some contributions from the most recent end-of-year campaign finance filings were not included in the original dataset used to generate the chart. The totals and accompanying graph have been updated to reflect the complete filings. The analysis and overall conclusions of the post are unchanged.
-
The field divides into distinct fundraising models — self-financed campaigns, nationally networked operations, and California-centered donor machines — each with different structural advantages.
-
Donor breadth varies dramatically, and campaigns with large, repeatable donor bases enter the race with built-in infrastructure that goes beyond raw dollar totals.
-
Geographic sourcing reveals which candidates are drawing from national ideological networks versus in-state political relationships — a split that may shape coalition-building as the race narrows.
Earlier this month, fundraising data for the governor’s race was released, showing how much each candidate raised through the end of 2025. In addition, candidates must report any contribution above $5,000 within 24 hours. Taken together — all donations reported through 12/31/2025 and any subsequent contributions exceeding $5,000 — the data provides a clear picture not just of who has money, but how each campaign has structured its fundraising and where that money is coming from.
A quick note: this analysis includes only itemized receipts, meaning donations of $100 or more. Contributions below that threshold are not legally required to be reported at the itemized level and therefore are not included here. As a result, total figures may appear slightly lower than a campaign’s full reported receipts. The list also includes only those who have raised more than $300,000 in order to cut out a lot of noise.
If you’re interested in this type of fundraising analysis, consider subscribing to The Ballot Book, where detailed financial data is available for all statewide and many local candidates. For additional insight into the governor’s race, you can explore our full coverage or review our polling aggregation.
Our first chart looks at total funds raised. Again, these figures reflect only itemized contributions, so they may slightly understate each campaign’s full receipts.
Steyer clearly stands apart — not just in total dollars, but in how much of that money comes from his own pocket. The scale is significant. But self-funding and donor-backed fundraising are not the same thing.
A few months ago, The Ballot Book published an analysis examining the track record of self-funded candidates in California. The results were not especially encouraging. And despite already spending a substantial portion of his war chest, Steyer remains in the single digits in most public polling — further evidence that money alone does not guarantee political traction.
Here, Steyer sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from the prior chart. He has the fewest unique donors in the field. He doesn’t need thousands of people writing checks — he can finance the campaign himself. But donor breadth tends to reflect something deeper than fundraising mechanics.
Large donor networks rarely appear overnight. They’re usually the byproduct of years spent campaigning, legislating, building relationships, and staying in the public eye. People give repeatedly to candidates they’ve followed, supported, or felt invested in long before a statewide race begins.
Katie Porter is a good example. Her 2018 win in Congress, followed by a series of highly publicized committee exchanges and viral moments, expanded her profile far beyond Orange County. Her Senate campaign required organizing statewide and reintroducing herself to voters across California. The payoff isn’t just money — it’s a donor list built over multiple cycles and multiple fights. Tens of thousands of people have already opted in.
That’s a different foundation than personal wealth. Advertising can create awareness. It’s harder to manufacture accumulated engagement. A large donor base usually reflects time spent building credibility and visibility — things that often correlate with vote potential.
Chad Bianco’s base has developed in a more regional way. As Riverside County Sheriff, he has had years of local exposure and repeated electoral contact with voters. That kind of visibility tends to translate into durable support networks, particularly within a defined geographic base.
Hilton’s route is different. His national media presence has allowed him to cultivate a conservative audience beyond California. That exposure gives him access to an existing donor ecosystem rather than requiring him to assemble one entirely from state and local relationships.
Donor breadth doesn’t guarantee votes. But it often signals something harder to fake: sustained political presence and a base that predates the campaign itself.
This scatterplot maps each candidate’s unique donor count against the total they’ve raised from other individuals — with self-funding removed. It illustrates the relationship between breadth of support and the financial output of that support.
The top-right quadrant is the strongest structural position: a large donor base paired with significant donor-funded revenue. Katie Porter and Steve Hilton sit squarely in that range, with Chad Bianco and Xavier Becerra not far behind.
Campaigns in that quadrant often have more durable fundraising operations. A broad base of smaller donors can be tapped repeatedly over the course of a cycle, creating flexibility and resilience. That model isn’t without limits. As a race intensifies, competing campaigns may target the same networks, and small-dollar fundraising can taper after an initial surge. It’s also less efficient than landing a handful of large checks — building volume takes time.
But scale matters. A campaign backed by thousands of individuals who are collectively willing to invest meaningful sums has built something more than a war chest. It has built infrastructure. And infrastructure is far harder to manufacture late in a race than a round of advertising.
The final chart breaks down what share of each candidate’s fundraising came from California versus out-of-state donors, measured by dollar amount.
A clear pattern emerges. Candidates who have served in Congress tend to draw a larger share of their money from outside California — a reflection of the national fundraising networks they developed in federal races, through sustained national media exposure, and through relationships in Washington’s donor ecosystem. Their campaigns are not confined to California’s political infrastructure.
By contrast, candidates whose careers have been rooted in state or local government tend to raise the overwhelming majority of their money within California. Their networks are more geographically concentrated, often built through long-standing ties to in-state donors, interest groups, and regional power centers.
This distinction also highlights the difference between Hilton and Bianco. Hilton’s national media profile allows him to tap into conservative donor networks beyond California, giving him a more geographically diversified fundraising base. Bianco, whose political rise has been anchored in Riverside County and Southern California, remains far more dependent on in-state support.
Conclusion
The election is still months away, and fundraising totals will continue to change. But campaign structure doesn’t materialize overnight. The networks that exist now — whether broad, concentrated, national, or California-centered — reflect years of political positioning.
Some candidates enter the race with expansive donor lists built through prior campaigns and sustained visibility. Others rely on tighter circles or personal resources. Those differences shape how a campaign can respond when the race tightens: how quickly it can raise money after a debate, how resilient it is after an attack, and how much organizational depth sits behind the advertising.
California’s political environment is fluid, and late movement is common. Still, early fundraising patterns often reveal where real infrastructure exists and where it does not. As the campaign accelerates, those underlying networks — more than any single fundraising report — are likely to determine who can scale and who stalls.