CASH AND CARRY CALIFORNIA: HOW THE TECHBRO OLIGARCHY LEARNED TO LOVE THE JUNGLE PRIMARY

 CASH AND CARRY CALIFORNIA

HOW THE TECHBRO OLIGARCHY LEARNED TO LOVE THE JUNGLE PRIMARY

California has always known how to flood a field. For generations, that meant agriculture: water, labor, land, and the eternal miracle of making almonds grow where nature may have gently suggested “maybe not.” But in modern California politics, flooding the field has taken on a new meaning. Now the crop is candidates, the fertilizer is billionaire cash, and the harvest is a legislature carefully pre-sorted for Silicon Valley’s convenience.

The June 2026 primary offered a masterclass in this new political agribusiness. The old Silicon Valley strategy — find one shiny executive candidate, staple a Patagonia vest to him, and try to buy the governor’s mansion — took a public faceplant. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, the tech industry’s heavily backed gubernatorial hope, stumbled badly, conceding with only a sliver of the early vote.

But focusing only on that defeat misses the larger story.

Because while the tech-backed bid for the crown collapsed, the barons quietly bought the brickwork.

The New Playbook: Don’t Buy the Governor, Buy the Plumbing

For years, Silicon Valley’s political operation had the subtlety of a self-driving car beta test in a school zone. It loved the big race, the marquee candidate, the executive office. Governor. Mayor. Someone with a podium, a microphone, and a reassuring ability to say “innovation” twelve times without blinking.

But this cycle, the oligarchs got smarter.

Instead of pouring everything into one statewide candidate, tech money scattered itself across legislative and local races — the places where regulation actually gets written, weakened, amended, delayed, buried, or quietly smothered in committee.

Committees like Grow California, fueled by crypto wealth, and California Leads, backed by Big Tech money, moved into down-ballot races with the precision of venture capitalists hunting for underpriced assets. And make no mistake: that is how many of these races are now treated.

Not as elections.

As acquisitions.

A statewide gubernatorial race in California is brutally expensive. Buying name recognition across Los Angeles, the Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, the Central Valley, and every politically cranky suburb in between costs a fortune. Even tech money can vanish into that furnace.

But a State Assembly race? A State Senate race? A local district primary where turnout is low, voters are distracted, and a few thousand ballots can change the future of AI regulation?

That is bargain-bin democracy.

Drop $1millionor$1 million 2 million into a local race, and suddenly the grassroots candidate with volunteers, clipboards, and an aunt designing Canva flyers is up against a digital Death Star.

Mailers arrive. Ads saturate feeds. Consultants descend. Poll-tested phrases bloom like invasive species.

The candidate backed by teachers, nurses, tenants, unions, climate groups, or watchdogs is “too extreme.”

The candidate backed by billionaires is “pragmatic.”

Funny how that works.

The Jungle Primary: Democracy, but Make It an Auction

California’s top-two primary system, often called the “jungle primary,” was sold as a way to reduce polarization. In theory, all candidates compete on the same ballot, and the top two vote-getters advance to November regardless of party.

In practice, it has become a playground for moneyed interests with spreadsheet discipline and Super PAC appetites.

In safely Democratic districts, tech donors do not need to elect Republicans. That would be gauche — and, in many places, mathematically doomed. Instead, they back business-friendly Democrats against progressive Democrats.

Same party label. Different owners.

The result is the rise of the Libertarian Democrat: socially progressive, culturally fluent, excellent at saying the right things about inclusion, climate, and reproductive rights — but suddenly very busy when someone brings up wealth taxes, antitrust, data privacy, algorithmic discrimination, crypto oversight, or gig-worker protections.

This is not old-school conservatism. There are no cowboy hats, Reagan posters, or speeches about “family values” delivered from a steakhouse banquet room.

This is something smoother.

It is deregulation with a rainbow logo.

It is austerity in an Allbirds sneaker.

It is “equity” language wrapped around a corporate veto.

Tom Steyer and the Flooded Field Problem

Tom Steyer, billionaire climate activist and threat to the comfortable status quo, represented a different kind of billionaire politics — still billionaire politics, yes, but pointed at climate action, taxation, and public-interest regulation rather than corporate insulation.

And that made him dangerous.

Not because he lacked money, but because he threatened the wrong people with the wrong ideas.

In a normal primary, a high-profile progressive billionaire might consolidate voters looking for a forceful counterweight to corporate power. But in a jungle primary, consolidation is optional. Fragmentation is the game.

Flood the field with enough candidates carrying enough shades of progressive branding, and the reform vote splinters into confetti. Meanwhile, the moderate, corporate-aligned, libertarian-friendly candidate glides upward with a disciplined donor base, heavy outside spending, and a message designed not to inspire but to reassure.

It is less “may the best candidate win” than “may the best-funded candidate survive the engineered fog machine.”

California perfected irrigation. Now it has perfected political runoff.

From Californian Ideology to Corporate Feudalism

To understand the creature now stalking Sacramento, one has to revisit the old idea of the Californian Ideology — the Bay Area fusion of counterculture aesthetics and market fundamentalism.

In its early form, this ideology wore beads and coded in a garage. It spoke of liberation, networks, personal freedom, and the thrilling possibility that technology could dissolve old hierarchies.

Then the garage became a campus.

The campus became a monopoly.

The monopoly hired lobbyists.

And the lobbyists discovered the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Today’s tech politics is the fully matured version of that ideology. It loves social freedom but hates economic constraint. It will celebrate diversity on the company homepage while spending millions to prevent lawmakers from asking whether its algorithms discriminate, its platforms exploit, or its wealth should be taxed.

The new California ruling class does not need to ban books or thump Bibles. That is for less aerodynamic oligarchies.

California’s tech elite prefers a softer bargain:

You may vote on culture.

They will veto the economy.

You may have symbolic representation.

They will handle capital allocation.

You may debate language.

They will own the infrastructure.

It is feudalism with better UX.

The Down-Ballot Coup: Where the Real Power Lives

The genius of the 2026 strategy was its humility. Not moral humility, obviously. Let’s not get carried away. Strategic humility.

Silicon Valley realized it did not need one king. It needed committee members.

It needed lawmakers who would think twice before introducing a tough AI bill. It needed legislators who would water down privacy rules. It needed “reasonable” Democrats who understand that cryptocurrency firms should not be burdened with regulations just because money keeps disappearing into digital smoke.

It needed a class of politicians fluent in the dialect of innovation panic:

• AI guardrails? You’re stifling the future.
• Wealth tax? You’re punishing success.
• Data privacy? You’re hurting small businesses.
• Gig-worker protections? You don’t understand flexibility.
• Crypto regulation? You fear decentralization.
• Public education oversight of ed-tech platforms? You’re blocking personalized learning.

This is how corporate power speaks when it has focus-grouped its conscience.

The goal is not always to defeat every progressive bill. That takes work. The more efficient method is to create a chilling effect.

When lawmakers see colleagues buried under a landslide of billionaire-funded mailers, they learn the lesson quickly. Nobody has to send a threat in writing. No one needs to say, “Nice district you have there; shame if a Super PAC happened to it.”

The message is ambient.

The next bill gets softened.

The next hearing gets postponed.

The next regulator gets told to “engage stakeholders.”

And in California, “stakeholders” increasingly means “people with enough money to make democracy hold its coat.”

The Billionaire Tax and the Fear of Being Governed

Nothing clarifies the mind of a billionaire quite like the possibility of taxation.

California’s proposed wealth tax — aimed at the richest residents — has triggered the kind of organized panic normally reserved for server outages and union drives. The state’s ultra-wealthy are not merely opposing a policy. They are building a political immune system against the very concept of public claim on private fortune.

That is what makes the down-ballot strategy so consequential.

A governor can sign or veto. But legislators write. Committees shape. Staffers negotiate. Amendments appear. Definitions narrow. Enforcement mechanisms vanish. Agencies get underfunded. Deadlines stretch. Studies are commissioned. Sunset clauses emerge from the mist.

This is where policy goes to become less threatening.

The billionaire class has learned that controlling the end of the process is not enough. Better to control the middle, where the public stops watching and the lobbyists bring snacks.

AI Regulation: The Fox Buys the Henhouse Committee

Artificial intelligence is the perfect example.

California is poised to shape some of the most important rules around generative AI, algorithmic bias, safety disclosures, worker surveillance, education technology, and automated decision-making. These rules could influence not just the state, but the country.

Naturally, the companies building the machines would prefer to help write the inspection manual.

They frame oversight as backward-looking, anti-innovation, and paranoid. But the public has heard this song before.

Every powerful industry says regulation will kill the future right up until the future kills someone’s job, privacy, pension, housing application, parole recommendation, or child’s educational record.

Then suddenly the same industry discovers nuance.

The stakes here are not abstract. AI systems are already reshaping labor, education, policing, health care, media, and finance. If the people writing the rules owe their political survival to the companies being regulated, that is not innovation policy.

That is a hostage note in committee format.

Education: The Public Commons Meets the Platform Pitch Deck

The tech oligarchy’s political ambitions also reach into public education, where the language of “personalized learning” often functions as a Trojan horse for privatization, surveillance, and platform dependency.

To be clear, technology can help students. Used well, it can expand access, support teachers, and improve learning.

But the billionaire-backed version usually comes with a familiar pattern:

1. Declare public systems broken.
2. Offer private platforms as salvation.
3. Collect student data.
4. Replace professional judgment with dashboards.
5. Call oversight “bureaucracy.”
6. Invoice the district.

When tech-friendly legislators dominate Sacramento, public education becomes easier to “disrupt.” Privacy protections can be weakened. Procurement rules can be loosened. Charter and voucher-adjacent schemes can be rebranded as innovation. Teachers become obstacles. Students become users. Classrooms become markets.

The public commons does not vanish all at once.

It gets updated into oblivion.

The Libertarian Democratic Republic of California

The emerging political order in California is not Republican. It is not traditionally Democratic either.

It is something stranger: the Libertarian Democratic Republic of California.

Its motto might as well be:

Social liberalism for the masses, economic immunity for the donors.

This hybrid ideology understands California perfectly. It knows that outright right-wing politics will not sell in most of the state. So it keeps the Democratic wrapper, adopts the approved cultural vocabulary, and surgically removes the redistributive spine.

The ballot says Democrat.

The donor list says Davos with a surfboard.

The campaign mailer says “common sense.”

The policy agenda says “please do not regulate the app.”

This is why the top-two primary is so useful. It lets corporate-backed moderates run not as conservatives, but as the sensible alternative to “extremism.” And in California, “extreme” increasingly means believing that billionaires should pay taxes, algorithms should be audited, workers should have rights, and public schools should not be turned into subscription services.

Radical stuff. Practically Jacobin. Someone alert Palo Alto.

Cash and Carry Democracy

The phrase “Cash and Carry California” captures the transaction perfectly.

Bring cash.

Carry policy.

The tech industry did not need to win every headline. It did not need to install a governor. It did not need to persuade the public that billionaire rule is good, wholesome, and rich in fiber.

It only needed to master the machinery.

The jungle primary rewards fragmentation. Down-ballot races reward concentrated spending. One-party dominance rewards intra-party capture. Low-information contests reward mailers, ads, and consultant-crafted moderation theater.

Put those ingredients together, and you get a state where public-interest candidates are drowned in money while corporate-friendly candidates float gently to the top, buoyed by independent expenditures and the soothing fiction of pragmatism.

This is not democracy ending with a bang.

It is democracy being optimized.

The Real Result of the 2026 Primary

The headline result may be that Silicon Valley’s preferred gubernatorial candidate flamed out.

The real result is that Silicon Valley won where it mattered.

It bought leverage.

It bought fear.

It bought access.

It bought a friendlier legislature.

Most of all, it bought the power to shape what future lawmakers will dare to propose.

That is the genius — and the danger — of the new techbro oligarchy. It no longer needs to rule openly. It can govern through incentives, threats, committee assignments, primary challenges, and the ever-present knowledge that any lawmaker who gets too ambitious may suddenly find their district carpet-bombed with ads explaining that they are “out of touch,” “anti-jobs,” and “too extreme for California.”

The jungle primary was supposed to give voters more choice.

Instead, it has given billionaires more angles.

California, the land of innovation, has once again disrupted an old industry.

This time, unfortunately, the industry was democracy.

Sources & Links for “Cash and Carry California”

1. California Election Results, Jungle Primary, and Top-Two System

These sources support the article’s discussion of California’s “jungle primary,” top-two primary structure, and election results.

• California Secretary of State — Election Results

  • Official statewide election returns, candidate vote totals, and primary/general election data.
  • https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results

• California Secretary of State — Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act

  • Explains California’s top-two primary system, under which the two highest vote-getters advance regardless of party.
  • https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-california

• California Secretary of State — Candidate Lists and Election Information

  • Useful for verifying candidate filings, ballot status, and official election materials.
  • https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections

• Ballotpedia — Top-Two Primaries in California

  • Background on California’s primary system and how it affects candidate advancement.
  • https://ballotpedia.org/Top-two_primary

• Ballotpedia — California Elections

  • Candidate pages, district races, election calendars, and results summaries.
  • https://ballotpedia.org/California_elections,_2026

---

2. Campaign Finance, Super PACs, and Independent Expenditures

These sources support claims about outside spending, independent expenditures, and billionaire/corporate influence in California elections.

• California Fair Political Practices Commission — Campaign Finance

  • California’s official campaign finance regulator.
  • https://www.fppc.ca.gov

• FPPC — Top Contributors and Campaign Finance Data

  • Useful for tracking major donors, committees, and spending.
  • https://www.fppc.ca.gov/transparency/top-contributors.html

• California Secretary of State — Cal-Access Campaign Finance Database

  • Official database for campaign finance filings, donors, committees, and independent expenditures.
  • https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov

• California Secretary of State — Power Search

  • Search tool for campaign finance contributions and expenditures.
  • https://powersearch.sos.ca.gov

• OpenSecrets — California Political Spending

  • Tracks federal and some state-level political money, donors, PACs, and industry influence.
  • https://www.opensecrets.org/states/CA

• FollowTheMoney — California Campaign Finance

  • State-level donor and campaign finance tracking from the National Institute on Money in Politics.
  • https://www.followthemoney.org

• MapLight Archive

  • Historical California campaign finance and legislative influence research.
  • https://maplight.org

---

3. Tech Industry Political Spending and Silicon Valley Influence

These sources support the article’s broader argument that Silicon Valley and technology interests have become major players in California politics.

• CalMatters — California Politics and Campaign Finance

  • Strong source for California-specific election spending, lobbying, and legislative influence reporting.
  • https://calmatters.org/category/politics/

• CalMatters — California Lobbying and Big Tech

  • Search page for CalMatters reporting on tech lobbying and campaign influence.
  • https://calmatters.org/?s=tech+lobbying

• Politico California Playbook

  • Frequent reporting on California campaigns, tech donors, Sacramento lobbying, and statewide races.
  • https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook

• Los Angeles Times — California Politics

  • Reporting on statewide elections, wealthy donors, ballot measures, and Silicon Valley influence.
  • https://www.latimes.com/california/politics

• San Francisco Chronicle — Politics

  • Especially useful for Bay Area tech political influence and Silicon Valley donors.
  • https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/

• The Sacramento Bee — Capitol Alert

  • Reporting on Sacramento legislation, campaign finance, lobbying, and state politics.
  • https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/

• KQED — California Politics

  • Public media reporting on state elections, campaign finance, and policy battles.
  • https://www.kqed.org/news/politics

---

4. California Lobbying, Big Tech, and Regulatory Battles

These sources support claims about tech lobbying around AI, privacy, gig work, crypto, and business regulation.

• California Secretary of State — Lobbying Activity

  • Official lobbying disclosure database.
  • https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/

• FPPC — Lobbying Rules and Disclosures

  • Explains California lobbying disclosure requirements.
  • https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/lobbyist-rules.html

• California Legislative Information

  • Official bill texts, committee analyses, votes, amendments, and legislative history.
  • https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

• California State Assembly

  • Committee rosters, hearings, and legislative information.
  • https://www.assembly.ca.gov

• California State Senate

  • Senate committees, hearings, and legislative tracking.
  • https://www.senate.ca.gov

• Electronic Frontier Foundation — California Privacy and Technology Policy

  • Advocacy and analysis on privacy, AI, surveillance, and digital rights.
  • https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy

• ACLU California Action — Technology and Civil Liberties

  • Civil liberties perspective on surveillance, AI, privacy, and automated decision-making.
  • https://www.acluca.org/en/issues/privacy-technology

---

5. Artificial Intelligence Regulation in California

These sources support the article’s discussion of AI guardrails, algorithmic accountability, safety disclosures, and regulatory fights in Sacramento.

• California Legislative Information — Search for AI Bills

  • Official bill search for artificial intelligence legislation.
  • https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

• California Privacy Protection Agency

  • State agency involved in privacy and automated decision-making rulemaking.
  • https://cppa.ca.gov

• California Privacy Protection Agency — Regulations

  • Rulemaking information, including automated decision-making and privacy regulations.
  • https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/

• National Conference of State Legislatures — Artificial Intelligence 2024/2025 Legislation

  • Tracks AI legislation across states, including California.
  • https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/artificial-intelligence-2024-legislation

• Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence — AI Index

  • Research on AI policy, regulation, investment, and governance trends.
  • https://aiindex.stanford.edu

• Brookings Institution — AI Governance

  • Policy analysis on AI regulation, accountability, and public oversight.
  • https://www.brookings.edu/topic/artificial-intelligence/

---

6. Wealth Tax, Billionaire Tax, and California Tax Policy

These sources support the article’s references to wealth taxation, ultra-rich political organizing, and tax policy fights.

• California Legislative Information — Tax Bills

  • Official source for proposed wealth tax or high-income tax legislation.
  • https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

• California Franchise Tax Board

  • State tax authority, useful for background on California taxation.
  • https://www.ftb.ca.gov

• Legislative Analyst’s Office — California Tax Policy

  • Nonpartisan fiscal analysis of state tax proposals.
  • https://lao.ca.gov

• Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy — California

  • Progressive tax policy analysis, wealth tax and inequality research.
  • https://itep.org/whopays/california/

• California Budget & Policy Center

  • Research on state budget, tax policy, inequality, and public services.
  • https://calbudgetcenter.org

• ProPublica — The Secret IRS Files

  • National reporting on billionaire taxation and ultra-wealthy tax avoidance.
  • https://www.propublica.org/series/the-secret-irs-files

---

7. Cryptocurrency, Digital Assets, and Political Spending

These sources support claims about crypto interests seeking influence over regulation and campaign politics.

• California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation

  • State agency overseeing financial services and digital asset regulation.
  • https://dfpi.ca.gov

• DFPI — Crypto Assets

  • California consumer and regulatory information on crypto assets.
  • https://dfpi.ca.gov/crypto-scams/

• California Digital Financial Assets Law

  • Information on California’s crypto licensing framework.
  • https://dfpi.ca.gov/dfal/

• OpenSecrets — Cryptocurrency Industry Political Spending

  • Tracks crypto-related federal political contributions and PAC spending.
  • https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=F15

• Public Citizen — Crypto Political Spending

  • Research and advocacy reports on crypto industry influence in elections.
  • https://www.citizen.org/topic/cryptocurrency/

• CoinDesk — Crypto Regulation and Political Spending

  • Industry reporting on crypto lobbying, PACs, and state/federal regulation.
  • https://www.coindesk.com/policy/

---

8. Public Education, EdTech, Privatization, and Student Data Privacy

These sources support the article’s section on public education, technology platforms, student data, and privatization concerns.

• California Department of Education

  • Official state education policy and data source.
  • https://www.cde.ca.gov

• California Student Privacy Alliance

  • Student data privacy resources and district-level privacy agreements.
  • https://privacy.a4l.org

• Parent Coalition for Student Privacy

  • Advocacy on student privacy, edtech, and data collection.
  • https://studentprivacymatters.org

• Electronic Frontier Foundation — Student Privacy

  • Digital rights research on educational technology and student surveillance.
  • https://www.eff.org/issues/student-privacy

• National Education Policy Center — Education Privatization and EdTech

  • Academic research on privatization, digital learning, and education policy.
  • https://nepc.colorado.edu

• In the Public Interest — Education Privatization

  • Research on privatization, public schools, and corporate influence.
  • https://inthepublicinterest.org

---

9. The “Californian Ideology” and Tech Libertarianism

These sources support the article’s ideological framing: Silicon Valley’s blend of social liberalism, market libertarianism, counterculture aesthetics, and corporate deregulation.

• Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron — “The Californian Ideology”

  • Foundational essay describing the fusion of counterculture and free-market tech capitalism.
  • https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/californian-ideology

• The Baffler — Silicon Valley Ideology

  • Essays and criticism on tech capitalism, libertarianism, and Silicon Valley culture.
  • https://thebaffler.com

• Evgeny Morozov — Technology Criticism

  • Critical analysis of solutionism, tech power, and Silicon Valley ideology.
  • https://www.evgenymorozov.com

• Wendy Liu — Abolish Silicon Valley

  • Book examining Silicon Valley ideology, labor, venture capital, and tech capitalism.
  • Publisher page: https://repeaterbooks.com/product/abolish-silicon-valley/

• Fred Turner — From Counterculture to Cyberculture

  • Academic history of the countercultural roots of Silicon Valley ideology.
  • University of Chicago Press: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3773600.html

• Corey Pein — Live Work Work Work Die

  • Critical account of Silicon Valley culture and startup ideology.
  • Metropolitan Books: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627794855/liveworkworkworkdie

---

10. Political Inequality, Oligarchy, and Money in Democracy

These sources support the broader argument about concentrated wealth reshaping democratic institutions.

• Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page — “Testing Theories of American Politics”

  • Influential political science study on economic elites and policy influence.
  • https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

• Brennan Center for Justice — Money in Politics

  • Research on campaign finance, dark money, and democratic accountability.
  • https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics

• Center for Responsive Politics / OpenSecrets

  • Campaign finance and lobbying data.
  • https://www.opensecrets.org

• Public Citizen — Money in Politics

  • Advocacy and research on corporate political spending.
  • https://www.citizen.org/topic/money-in-politics/

• Issue One — Political Reform and Campaign Finance

  • Research on dark money, campaign finance, and political accountability.
  • https://issueone.org

---

11. Useful Fact-Checking Links for Specific Claims in the Article

Use these to verify the most article-specific assertions before publication.

Claim to Verify	Best Source	Link
Matt Mahan’s 2026 primary vote share	California Secretary of State election results	https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results
Grow California donors and expenditures	Cal-Access / Power Search	https://powersearch.sos.ca.gov
California Leads donors and expenditures	Cal-Access / Power Search	https://powersearch.sos.ca.gov
Independent expenditures in Assembly/Senate races	Cal-Access independent expenditure filings	https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov
Tech lobbying totals in California	Secretary of State lobbying database	https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/
AI legislation in Sacramento	California Legislative Information	https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Wealth tax ballot measure or bill status	California Secretary of State / Legislative Info	https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures
Crypto regulation in California	DFPI	https://dfpi.ca.gov/dfal/

---

Suggested Endnote / Source Note for the Article

You can include this at the bottom of the piece:

Sources: California Secretary of State election and campaign finance records; California Fair Political Practices Commission filings; Cal-Access and Power Search campaign finance databases; California Legislative Information; reporting from CalMatters, Politico California, the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, and KQED; policy research from the Brennan Center for Justice, OpenSecrets, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU California Action, California Budget & Policy Center, and Stanford HAI; and historical analysis from Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron’s “The Californian Ideology.”