Willie Brown, the former San Francisco mayor long viewed as a power broker in California Democratic politics, has endorsed billionaire Tom Steyer in the state’s governor’s race.
The endorsement matters less for the flattering adjectives in the press release than for what it signals about how California’s ruling party still works: candidates queue up for an insider’s blessing, then sell themselves as “independent” outsiders to voters who live under one-party rule.
The New York Post’s report on Brown’s endorsement of Steyer described Brown as a “California political kingmaker” and “one of the most established insiders in California politics.” Brown’s backing, in other words, is not just another nod; it’s a reminder of the networks and gatekeepers that keep driving Democratic outcomes in the state.
Brown said he has known Steyer “for many years” and framed his endorsement as a judgment about temperament and governance, not ideology.
Brown argued that “California needs a governor who is fully informed, independent in thought, and focused on what serves the public best,” and said he believes Steyer “embodies those qualities and offers real benefit to the state’s future.”
He also praised Steyer’s approach to policy and decision-making: “I’ve seen how how he brings a deep understanding of complex issues, a disciplined approach to learning and decision making, and a clear commitment to leading with principle and purpose to everything he does,” Brown said.
That language is tailored to reassure: steady hands, studied mind, principled leadership. But it also invites a basic question voters have learned to ask in California: independent from whom?
Steyer has branded himself as an outsider candidate, even as he runs in a Democratic primary ecosystem where endorsements and donor networks often matter as much as ballots. The Post reported that Steyer has framed himself as further left than some challengers, promoting a tax on billionaires and single-payer health care.
Steyer, for his part, publicly welcomed Brown’s support, writing, “I am grateful for Willie Brown’s confidence as we work to move the state forward.” He shared a video on X featuring Brown hailing Steyer for his “brain power” and independence.
It’s a familiar California political paradox: run as an outsider, then seek validation from the very insiders who helped shape the state’s political class. And it’s not a small detail that Brown’s personal and political connections reach deep into today’s Democratic power structure, including his widely noted ties to figures like Kamala Harris, who remains a fixture in party intrigue, as our coverage has noted in the debate over Harris’s standing in future Democratic polling.
Brown’s endorsement did not come out of nowhere. The Post reported that “over the past few weeks,” members of the crowded Democratic field were spotted meeting with him.
Two examples were public. On April 23, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan bragged about a “pre-debate ritual: lunch with Willie Brown” in an Instagram post. And on April 27, ex-Rep. Katie Porter posted a photo with Brown and said she was “grateful for his wisdom, his sharp wit, and a deep dive into the future of our state.”
Mahan and Porter, the Post noted, were “hovering around 7-8% in recent polling.” (The polling source was not identified in the report.) Still, the pattern is clear: candidates chase proximity to Brown, then hope the association translates into momentum.
That’s not just a personality story. It’s the operating system of one-party politics: the same handful of names keep circulating endorsements, introductions, and approvals, while regular Californians are told to treat each election as a fresh start.
Brown’s influence is not presented as a problem in Democratic politics; it’s treated as a feature. The Post said Brown played a “critical role” in the rise of Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris, and described Brown as friends with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
So when Brown publicly embraces Steyer as “independent,” voters should measure that claim against the reality of how power works in California. Independence is not a slogan; it’s a record. And in a state where Democrats have dominated the levers of government, the most “independent” move would be to level with the public about which institutions, donors, and political machines have failed, and how to unwind them.
Instead, the Democratic electorate is again being asked to believe that the next well-connected candidate, with the right endorsements, will somehow break from the habits of the last well-connected candidate. California has heard that pitch before.
The Post reported that Steyer’s campaign “has not relied on corporate donations,” and that he frequently points out “the millions” spent by utility companies and others opposing his campaign.
That framing is politically convenient: Steyer casts himself as battling entrenched interests. But Brown’s endorsement highlights a separate kind of entrenchment, political, not corporate. It’s hard to call a campaign insurgent when it’s seeking the blessing of one of the state’s best-known Democratic power brokers.
And while Democrats try to keep their internal deal-making out of view, public frustration with party elites doesn’t just vanish. It shows up in the party’s own tensions and image-management efforts, something readers have seen in our coverage of Harris’s public positioning, including the scrutiny over Harris’s media strategy.
The Post report leaves key details unresolved that voters would reasonably want to know. It does not specify when Brown made the endorsement, and it does not provide the full text of Brown’s statement beyond the excerpts quoted.
It also references Steyer sharing a video on X featuring Brown, but does not provide a direct link to the post. And while it cites recent polling that places Mahan and Porter around “7-8%,” it does not identify the polling source.
Those gaps don’t change the central fact of the endorsement. But they do reflect a broader problem in California politics: a tight circle of endorsements, social-media clips, and selective messaging stands in for real transparency, while voters are expected to fill in the blanks.
California’s Democratic bench is full of ambitious politicians. Yet the gravitational pull of insiders remains strong, from Sacramento to San Francisco. The result is politics that feels like performance for activists and donors, not accountability to families and taxpayers.
Even the party’s national figures, still orbiting the same donor-and-title ecosystem, can’t escape the dynamic, something our readers have followed in recent reporting on Harris and Democrats “clinging to their titles”.
Brown’s endorsement of Steyer is a reminder: California Democrats aren’t short on candidates. They’re short on self-government.
In a state run by one party, endorsements from the permanent political class aren’t “stunning.” They’re the point, and they’re why California keeps getting more of the same.