The measure would allow any state or local government to set up a public financing program for election campaigns. Candidates would need to meet certain eligibility criteria and agree to spending limits. The funds could not be used for legal defense costs, fines or repayment of personal loans. Proposition 4 would repeal a 1988 ban on using taxpayer dollars for election campaigns. Currently, only charter cities and counties can bypass that ban.
Yes Argument
Elections shouldn’t be determined by who has the greatest personal wealth or access to special interests. This measure would fight the influence of corporate money and super PACs by giving communities the opportunity to explore public financing programs that can help women, people of color and working-class candidates run competitive campaigns. It’s nonpartisan and prohibits public financing programs from favoring incumbents or political parties.
No Argument
Taxpayer dollars should be used for public services — like schools, roads and libraries — not political campaigns. At a time when cities and counties need more revenue for essential services, public financing opens the door to wasted taxpayer money on candidates who may never appear on the ballot. The measure is written too broadly, leaving each government to set its own eligibility criteria and spending limits, making the system vulnerable to abuse.
Key Supporters
In Support
- Tom Umberg, state senator
- California Clean Money Campaign
- California Common Cause
- California Democratic Party
- League of Women Voters of California
In Opposition
- Dan Schnur, former chair, Fair Political Practices Commission
- California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
- California Taxpayers Association
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- Reform California
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing, homebuying opportunities and veterans and homelessness programs?
Should successor elections be eliminated from recall elections of state officials?
Should California issue $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a “middle-class” homebuyer downpayment assistance program?
Should California issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research?
Should California tax the wealth of billionaires to fund health care services?
Should California require ongoing audits of programs funded by specific taxes, and make those tax revenues subject to the state’s spending limit?
Should the state prohibit new taxes on financial assets like stocks and investment accounts and prohibit most retroactive taxes?
Should local tax measures placed on the ballot by voter signature face a higher threshold if the tax will be used for a specific purpose?
Should certain nonprofit community health clinics be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare services?
Should California speed up its environmental review process for certain projects?