2026’s Self-Funding Hopefuls Face a Tough Track Record

There’s a common assumption in politics that candidates who self-fund their campaigns automatically have a better shot at winning. But at least in California’s statewide and legislative contests, the numbers tell a different story. With the 2026 governor’s race already featuring one major self-funder—Stephen Cloobeck, who has put roughly $13 million into his own campaign—and others eyeing the race, including Rick Caruso and Steve Hilton, it’s worth looking at how similar candidates have fared in the past. Caruso, who spent heavily in his 2022 run for Los Angeles mayor, came up short. Hilton has already written himself checks in the low six figures for his current campaign.

(For more analysis of fundraising in the 2026 governor's race, click here)

For this analysis, we looked at every candidate for State Senate, State Assembly, or statewide office since 2012 who gave themselves at least $100,000. The results are clear: self-funding at this level has not translated into strong odds of victory in general elections. Even leaving aside the most famous example—Meg Whitman’s record-breaking but unsuccessful bid for governor in 2010—the general election win rate for self-funders is low. A six-figure check may dominate a local city council race, but in larger districts and statewide contests, it often isn’t enough to move the needle.

That said, self-funding appears to be more helpful in primaries—at least slightly more often than not, according to our data. This is partly because primary fields can be easier to navigate: in districts where one party isn’t competitive, the dominant party’s primary often draws fewer high-caliber challengers. Primaries can also split donor bases among multiple viable candidates, meaning a self-funder can secure a larger share of resources simply by starting with more. In some cases, the presence of a well-financed self-funder may even deter other strong candidates from entering, further improving their odds of advancing.

Part of the explanation for poor general election performance may be scale, but another factor is how self-funding changes campaign behavior. Candidates who don’t have to raise money may miss out on building the coalitions, relationships, and political skills that come with asking others for support. Many also enter politics from outside the traditional political ladder, lacking the infrastructure and networks that seasoned officeholders have built over time.

Below, we break down a decade’s worth of California races to show how self-funders have performed—and what the data suggests about their real odds.