It’s officially over for Tom Steyer. Again.
The billionaire’s defeat in California should serve as a wakeup call for any politician – including Gavin Newsom – running on the Rockefeller-backed “Make Polluters Pay” campaign, the decade-plus national effort to turn climate policy into legal liability for the oil and gas industry.
Here’s what you need to know:
Steyer Put “Make Polluters Pay” on the Ballot, and Lost
Running as the country’s best known climate billionaire, Steyer made “Make Polluters Pay” a centerpiece of his campaign, pledging to force climate “polluters,” “Big Oil,” utilities, and corporate “profiteers” to shoulder costs that he argued were driving California’s affordability crisis.
Steyer effectively put that agenda on the ballot – and California voters rejected it.
Steyer poured more than $215 million into the race, according to CalMatters, while former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who benefitted from about $70 million in campaign and PAC spending, secured the top general election spot. Steyer finished in third place behind Republican Steve Hilton.
For the Rockefeller-backed climate lawfare movement, Steyer’s loss is a grave warning sign from one of the bluest electorates in America.
California Voters Recognize “Make Polluters Pay” Means Higher Prices
Steyer’s loss in California fundamentally exposes the political fiction of the idea that the government can impose massive retroactive costs on energy producers, utilities, refiners, insurers, and other industries without those costs reaching consumers.
Californians, as the results indicate, are fed up the real world costs of that agenda. Voters consistently said affordability was the central theme of the race, with California drivers paying far above the national average for gasoline and residents facing the second highest residential electricity rates in the country.
That context makes Steyer’s defeat a clear referendum on the idea that voters want even more California style climate policy layered on top of an already unaffordable state economy.
General Election Frontrunner Breaks with Far-Left on Oil and Gas
As the gubernatorial race heated up this spring, Steyer increasingly sought to draw a contrast with Becerra on oil and gas.
As California AG, Becerra declined to sue oil companies over climate change, even as other Democratic attorneys general were moving more aggressively against the industry. Steyer backers like Bill McKibben, a longtime fixture in the climate litigation movement, made the same criticism before the primary in the Los Angeles Times. McKibben argued that after Kamala Harris left the attorney general’s office, the decision about whether California would join that effort fell to Becerra, who stayed silent.
McKibben’s criticism was unusually revealing. He maintained that Becerra had done “little or nothing” as attorney general to take on the oil industry; noted Becerra’s donations from Chevron, Sempra, Southern California Edison, PG&E, and Edison International; and endorsed Steyer as the “climate-conscious alternative.”
McKibben, in his own words, made the governors race a referendum on the Rockefeller agenda.
Becerra made the contrast even clearer. Asked about Chevron’s role in California politics in May, he said:
“They’re not the bad guy … You need Chevron. I need Chevron. My people of the state of California need Chevron”
Unmistakably, this was a clear allusion to California’s ongoing refinery supply crisis. While politicians like Steyer want to ban fossil fuels and sue “Big Oil,” California still depends on gasoline and refineries to keep the economy functioning. Political experts in California argued Becerra was able to capitalize on that dynamic:
“The fact that you’re seeing Becerra continue to lead, if not grow his lead … I think is arguably evidence that Californians are concerned about affordability and they do understand where their fuel comes from that they rely upon,” Rob Stutzman, a veteran conservative strategist who has worked with the oil industry, said in an interview. “Companies like Chevron and CRC are not black hats, but essential to daily lives.”
Stutzman also recently argued the result should resonate well beyond California:
“I do think it’s interesting and instructive for Democrats, the [Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro types] of the world,” Stutzman told Politico. “To see it backfire on the climate hawk in the primary … I think it will catch the attention of candidates and campaign strategists that are gearing up for the 2028 presidential primary.”
This captures the political problem for the Rockefellers’ broader climate agenda. California has spent years trying to engineer a rapid energy transition through EV mandates, forced electrification, cap and trade, refinery restrictions, and climate lawsuits. And yet, the state still needs fuel, power, refining capacity, grid reliability, and affordable energy.
Future of State Climate Suit Now in Question
That makes this result especially damaging for the Rockefellers. California was supposed to be the easiest possible place to sell “Make Polluters Pay.” It is deep blue, home to the first municipalities that launched climate liability suits against energy companies in 2017, and has a Democratic electorate that has repeatedly supported aggressive movement on climate change.
In 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom and AG Rob Bonta took things further at New York Climate Week unveiling California’s state climate suit, which Rockefeller activists hailed as a landmark escalation in climate litigation. At the time Bonta even took a swipe at his predecessor Becerra for failing to file a climate case:
“And I realize that some people may have been asking ‘Where’s California?’ California, part of our legacy is to go first, most aggressively to address climate change, time and time again. We’re here, we’ve sued. We’re acting, we’re all in. We’re aggressive, and others should join us.”
Just a few years later, all that work appears to have been rejected – not by conservative voters in Texas or Oklahoma, but by California voters in a deep blue state.
Even worse for climate lawfare activists, Bonta himself stayed neutral in the gubernatorial race, a remarkable flip considering he endorsed Steyer for President in 2020. Even the AG behind California’s “landmark” climate case, it appears, saw the writing on the wall.
California House of Cards Collapses
For years, Rockefeller climate activists have argued that lawsuits and superfund bills are politically safer than taxes because they target unpopular corporations instead of voters. Steyer tested that theory with unlimited money, massive name recognition, and the most favorable electorate in the country. He attacked Chevron, utilities, and positioned himself as the champion of the entire “Make Polluters Pay” movement.
California voters still appear to have chosen the Democrat who said, in effect, California needs Chevron.
For the Rockefellers, that has to be a flashing red light. Yes, their agenda still has foundation money, activist infrastructure, and sympathetic officials in blue states. But at the ballot box, even in California, it now looks like a certified loser.
BOTTOM LINE: If “Make Polluters Pay” cannot win in California with Tom Steyer spending more than $216 million, it is hard to see why lawmakers in other states should believe climate superfunds, fossil fuel insurance lawsuit bills, forced electrification mandates, refinery crackdowns, or climate lawsuits are political winners anywhere else.
Steyer’s defeat also serves as a warning to Democrats with national ambitions, including Gavin Newsom. Climate lawfare may please Rockefeller activists, but it is increasingly a liability with voters – even in California.
