In the high-stakes battle over California’s redistricting, a fierce ad war emerged as the defining factor—one that pitted local leaders, celebrities, and even former governors against each other in a fight for voters’ minds. But here’s where it gets controversial: while opponents of the measure poured millions into ads claiming it would harm voters by dismantling the state’s independent redistricting commission, supporters countered with a digital-heavy strategy that spotlighted high-profile Democrats. And this is the part most people miss: despite the clamor for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s involvement, his ads were oddly underfunded compared to others. Why? Let’s dive in.
In today’s digital age, broadcast and cable ads reach only a fraction of voters, yet they still offer a revealing glimpse into a campaign’s priorities. The Yes on 50 campaign, for instance, allocated 60% of its ad budget to digital platforms—streaming services and online ads—while still spending 40% on traditional linear media like TV and radio. This hybrid approach wasn’t just strategic; it was data-driven, with Governor Gavin Newsom’s direct-to-camera spot proving to be a top performer, even in regions where his popularity was lukewarm.
Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, appeared in three ads: one at a campaign launch, another addressing voters directly, and a third alongside fellow Democratic leaders. These ads aired statewide, including in less-friendly territories like Bakersfield, Fresno, Chico, and Redding. Interestingly, the ad featuring Newsom at the launch rally was limited to California’s four largest markets, but the others reached smaller areas, suggesting a calculated effort to maximize impact.
Here’s the kicker: the most expensive ad for the Yes side wasn’t about Newsom—it was about Senator Alex Padilla. The campaign spent over $5.4 million on a spot depicting Padilla being handcuffed after a Kristi Noem news conference, with Padilla’s voiceover declaring, ‘When Donald Trump’s agents threw me to the ground, they were trying to silence all of us.’ An additional $1.3 million was spent on a Spanish-language version targeting Fresno, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Was this a play for statewide exposure as Padilla mulled a gubernatorial run? It’s hard not to wonder.
On the No on 50 side, the strategy was starkly different. Instead of leaning on Schwarzenegger—the only high-profile Republican in their TV ads—the campaign spent $8.8 million on a spot featuring Yorba Linda Mayor Janice Kim and Rev. Mac Shorty of South Los Angeles. Their message? Prop 50 would ‘destroy California’s reputation as a national leader for fair elections.’ Schwarzenegger’s ad, in contrast, received just $1.9 million, airing for only a week compared to nearly a month for Kim and Shorty’s commercials. Why the disparity? Is Schwarzenegger’s star power fading, or was this a deliberate choice?
Adding fuel to the fire, billionaire Tom Steyer—a potential gubernatorial candidate—spent $8.1 million on an ad showing a Trump imitator reacting angrily to a Prop 50 victory. While Steyer’s ads aimed to rally Democrats, they sparked backlash within the party, with critics calling them self-serving. Was Steyer genuinely advocating for the cause, or was this a thinly veiled attempt to boost his own profile?
The messaging divide couldn’t be clearer: the Yes side leaned on top Democrats like Newsom, Padilla, Barack Obama, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, while the No side focused on ‘everyday Californians.’ Amy Thoma Tan of Protect Voters First summed it up: ‘We tried to focus on the people actually impacted by this, not partisan politicians.’ But is this a fair critique, or does it overlook the necessity of high-profile endorsements in modern campaigns?
As the dust settles on this ad war, one question lingers: In the fight for fair redistricting, who truly speaks for California’s voters—the politicians or the people? Share your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
