Billionaire California gov. candidate Tom Steyer caught in shocking hypocrisy: 'It was a mistake' ⁠44%

By Titus Wu⁠85%

4/14/2026, 7:41:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 31.4% saturation with 162 hits. Analysis detected 1,326 faulty-reasoning hits from 516 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠44% (11,552 of 20,372 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.70% of the article peer group.

Progressive billionaire Tom Steyer has been telling California voters he wants to “abolish ICE” despite investing nearly $90 million in a company behind the state’s largest immigration detention center. 
The California gubernatorial candidate has tried to swat off that criticism, but in a recent interview with the Sacramento Bee, he said it was a “mistake.” 
“We never had anything to do with running the company,” Steyer said. 
“But it was a mistake to think that that was a place where it was decent to make money.” 
Prisoners are seen inside a prison exercise yard at the California City Immigration Processing Center, the state’s newest and largest ICE prison, on March 25, 2026 in California City. 
Getty Images 
This is who Californians may choose to be their Governor. 
Tom Seyer. 
Epic levels of cringe. pic.twitter.com/yJ3HHNPTF8 
— Spitfire (@RealSpitfire) April 14, 2026 
Steyer founded a hedge fund named Farallon Capital Management in 1986. 
Under his management, the fund put money into CoreCivic, which runs private prisons. 
Farallon’s shares in the company was valued at $89.1 million at one point. 
Now, the company runs five facilities in California, according to its website. 
At least two of them house people detained by federal immigration agents — one near San Diego and another in Kern County. 
Steyer eventually left Farallon and sold his stake in the hedge fund in 2012. 
The candidate’s ties to CoreCivic are coming under increased scrutiny by the left. 
After the implosion of U.S. 
Rep. 
Eric Swalwell’s campaign this weekend, Steyer is now one of two leading Democratic competitors set to swoop up most of Swalwell’s voters and surge in the polls. 
“Before he was a progressive, he made millions off of companies that operate ICE detention centers, that operate private prisons that incarcerated young children,” state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said in an interview with an influencer late March. 
Ads have bombarded televisions highlighting his link. 
The billionaire has aired ads trying to tell viewers that those other ads are false, Politico reported. 
“Those investments were 20 years ago, and I left my firm over a decade ago and pledged most of my earnings to charity,” Steyer said in his hitback. 
Regardless, Steyer is still seeing momentum. 
A poll dropped Tuesday, conducted April 8 to 10, showed him leading the entire field at 21%. 
California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer REUTERS 
Steyer has framed his regret being involved with CoreCivic as a wake-up call that led him to walk away from the hedge fund industry. 
He said it also led to his work advocating against mass incarceration. 
“It was also a big wake-up call that I was in the wrong place, that I was in a business that was taking me to places I absolutely didn’t want to go,” Steyer said at a March town hall. 
“And there’s a reason I walked away from that business and walked away from a ton of money.” 
Candidates aren’t letting up on their attacks against Steyer as they attempt to link him with ICE. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.6%Titus Wu: 4.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Titus Wu: 3.5%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic1.4%This article: 2.5%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.5%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%Titus Wu: 12.5%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect21.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias1.2%This article: 26.6%Titus Wu: 22.1%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias26.6%This article: 25.8%Titus Wu: 4.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias25.8%This article: 4.7%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.7%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Titus Wu: 2.4%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.9%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.5%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Titus Wu: 4.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem1.4%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.9%Titus Wu: 3.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority8.9%This article: 1.2%Titus Wu: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma1.2%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.3%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.8%Titus Wu: 6.8%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization7.8%This article: 5.8%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring5.8%This article: 5.2%Titus Wu: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 20.5%Titus Wu: 9.6%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion20.5%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 5.4%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque5.4%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.0%Titus Wu: 3.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.7%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading3.7%This article: 7.8%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy7.8%This article: 7.8%Titus Wu: 3.9%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote7.8%This article: 10.5%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection10.5%This article: 31.4%Titus Wu: 17.4%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice31.4%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 8.1%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 3.7%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.3%

516 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers33%attributed speech346writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageTom Steyer • 12 words • 100.0% coverageTom Steyer • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageGetty Images • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageTony Thurmond • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTom Steyer • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageTom Steyer • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTom Steyer • 39 words • 0.0% coverageTom Steyer • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tony Thurmond

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words24% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+96.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Tony Thurmond: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-38.7 ptsWriter: 38.7%Tony Thurmond: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%Tony Thurmond: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Tony Thurmond: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.