Election 2026 · State of California
Proposition 4: Allow public funding of election campaigns
Proposition 4 would lift the state ban on using public money to pay for candidates' campaigns, so state and local governments could create public campaign financing programs if they chose. It does not create any program itself. It sets broad rules: money meant for education, transportation or public safety can't be used, candidates must show broad support and accept spending limits, and public funds can't pay legal fees, fines or repay a candidate's own loans.
Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 4.
At a glance
| Proposition 4 | |
|---|---|
| What it does | Lets the state, counties, general law cities and districts create public campaign financing programs. Creates no program |
| State cost | A few hundred thousand dollars a year for the FPPC (Legislative Analyst) |
| City of LA's own program | In place since 1993; $11.08 million in matching funds paid to 2026 City candidates as of Sept. 30 |
| Vote needed | Simple majority |
| Money raised, Jan. 1 to Sept. 28, 2026 | For: $245,475.23 (one committee). Against: no committee |
| Outside spending | Against: $37,500 by Reform California (shared with other props). For: under $4,000 |
| Latest public polls | PPIC, Sept. 4-10: 42% yes, 53% no. Berkeley IGS, Sept. 15-20: 35% yes, 35% no, 30% undecided |
What does a yes vote on Proposition 4 mean?
State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for public office candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be used, how the public funds could be used, and who could receive them.
What does a no vote on Proposition 4 mean?
State and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates.
What would Proposition 4 cost?
The Legislative Analyst estimates state costs of a few hundred thousand dollars a year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public financing programs. The cost of any actual program would depend on which governments create one and how.
What it means for the City of LA
Los Angeles already runs a public matching funds program for City candidates, allowed because the current ban does not reach charter cities. Proposition 4 would not create, fund or end that program. It would let Los Angeles County, LAUSD and other local governments create programs. Proposition 4 also writes new rules for public financing programs. Neither the Legislative Analyst nor the City has said whether those rules would bind a charter city's own elections.
The details
| Official title | Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute. |
|---|---|
| Type | Legislative statute amending the Political Reform Act, placed on the ballot by the Legislature (SB 42, Chapter 245, Statutes of 2025) |
| Votes needed to pass | Simple majority (more than 50% yes) of votes cast statewide. The Political Reform Act is a voter-approved initiative statute; the State Constitution (Article II, Section 10) lets the Legislature amend it only by a statute "approved by the electors," and provides that such measures take effect when "approved by a majority of votes cast thereon." |
The question on your ballot
Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs. Supporters: League of Women Voters of CA; California Nurses Association; Mental Health Advocacy; Social Security Works; Consumer Watchdog Opponents: California Taxpayers Assn; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn; Family Business Assn of California; United Latinos Action
This is not the Proposition 4 on the November 5, 2024 ballot, the bond for water, wildfire and climate projects, which passed with 59.8% of the vote (Secretary of State, November 2024 Statement of Vote).
What would change
| Today | If Proposition 4 passes | |
|---|---|---|
| Public money for campaigns | Banned for state offices and most local offices. The ban does not apply to city elections in certain charter cities; the Analyst names Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland and Berkeley as current examples that fund campaigns (LAO analysis) | The ban is lifted. The state and any local government may create a program, but none is created by the measure (LAO analysis) |
| Which money can be used | Not applicable | Public funds “earmarked by any state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety” cannot be used (text, Sec. 85300(a)) |
| Who can get public money | Not applicable | Candidates who accept spending limits and meet “strict criteria” showing broad support in their district, such as a set number of small contributions or vouchers from residents. A law may not require more than $10 from each counted contributor, or a set number of signatures (text, Sec. 85300(b), (e)(7)) |
| Spending limits | Not applicable | Programs may raise a participant’s limit, capped by a formula based on opponents’ money and outside spending (text, Sec. 85300(f)) |
| Uses barred | Not applicable | No public funds for legal defense fees or fines, or to repay a candidate’s own loans. A candidate who takes public funds may never repay their own campaign loan from any source (text, Sec. 85300(c)-(d)) |
| Fairness rule | Not applicable | Programs may not favor a party, incumbents or challengers (text, Sec. 85300(g)) |
| Who runs local programs | Not applicable | Each local government. The state FPPC is not responsible for running or enforcing them, but would answer questions (text, Sec. 85300(h); LAO analysis) |
| Illegal foreign money | Fine equal to the amount contributed or spent | Fine of up to three times that amount (text, Sec. 85320(e)) |
Later changes. The Legislature could change the definitions, the spending-limit formula and the FPPC’s role by a two-thirds vote with the Governor’s signature. Changing the other rules would need another vote of the people (text, Sec. 85300(i); Gov. Code sec. 81012).
What it means for the City of Los Angeles
The City already has a program. Los Angeles voters created the City’s public matching funds program. It has been used in every City election since 1993 (City Ethics, 2019; City Ethics 2026 FAQ). It is allowed today because the state ban does not apply to charter cities. The state Supreme Court ruled that in Johnson v. Bradley (1992), according to the Assembly Elections Committee’s analysis of SB 42 (Assembly Elections Committee analysis, p. 5; LAO analysis).
How the City program works in 2026 (City Ethics 2026 FAQ):
- The City pays $6 for each $1 of a qualified contribution from an individual, up to $143 per contributor for Council and $257 for citywide offices.
- To qualify, a candidate must get at least $5 each from 100 residents of the district or City, raise a minimum total from City residents ($14,300 for Council, $38,600 for City Attorney or Controller, $77,100 for Mayor), accept spending limits, cap their own money, face an opponent on the ballot, and debate or hold a town hall.
- Maximum payments per candidate: $189,000 in a Council primary and $236,000 in a Council general election; $1,257,000 and $1,507,000 for Mayor.
- The money comes from a City trust fund that the Charter requires the Council to fund each year, from City revenue only (City Charter sec. 471). The proposed 2026-27 budget puts $4,275,471 from the General Fund into the Matching Campaign Funds Trust Fund. The 2025-26 adopted budget shows no appropriation, after $4,075,427 in 2024-25 (City 2026-27 Proposed Budget, p. 372).
- In the 2026 City elections, the City Ethics Commission’s totals page showed $11,076,890.66 in matching funds paid as of Sept. 30: $7,460,256.62 for the primary and $3,616,634.04 for the general election (City Ethics election totals).
What Proposition 4 would and would not do to it.
- Proposition 4 does not create, fund, cap or repeal the City’s program (LAO analysis).
- It would let governments that now fall under the ban, such as Los Angeles County, LAUSD and the Community College District, create their own programs (LAO analysis; Assembly Elections Committee analysis, p. 5). None would have to.
- Proposition 4 rewrites the state law (Government Code Section 85300) with new conditions for any public financing program. The Legislative Analyst does not say whether those conditions would apply to a charter city’s own elections, and the Assembly committee analysis does not address it (LAO analysis; Assembly Elections Committee analysis). We found no statement from the City Ethics Commission, City Attorney or City Council on Proposition 4 as of Sept. 30, 2026.
How it got on the ballot
The Political Reform Act of 1974 is a voter-approved initiative statute, so the Legislature can amend it only by a two-thirds vote to further its purposes, or by a statute voters approve (Gov. Code sec. 81012). SB 42 takes the second route: its text says it is submitted to the people under Article II, Section 10 of the Constitution (text).
- Dec. 5, 2024: SB 42 was introduced. Its lead authors are Sens. Tom Umberg, Ben Allen and Cervantes; the principal coauthors include Assemblymembers Berman, Kalra, Lee and Pellerin (SB 42 status).
- June 2, 2025: The Senate passed it 28-10 (SB 42 votes).
- July 2, 2025: The Assembly Elections Committee approved it 5-2. Its analysis lists the California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause and League of Women Voters of California as co-sponsors, and the California Taxpayers Association as the only registered opponent (SB 42 votes; Assembly Elections Committee analysis, pp. 7-9).
- Sept. 12-13, 2025: The Assembly passed it 59-20 and the Senate agreed 29-8 (SB 42 votes).
- Oct. 2, 2025: Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it; it became Chapter 245, Statutes of 2025 (SB 42 history).
Why the vote threshold is a simple majority. Article II, Section 10 of the State Constitution provides that the Legislature “may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors,” and that an initiative statute or referendum “approved by a majority of votes cast thereon takes effect” (Cal. Const. art. II, sec. 10). The Political Reform Act says it may be amended “by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors” (Gov. Code sec. 81012(b)).
Related past measures.
- Proposition 73 (1988) created the ban (KQED; Daily News).
- Voters rejected three earlier measures that would have lifted the ban and set up state programs: Proposition 25 (2000, 34.7% yes), Proposition 89 (2006, 25.7%) and Proposition 15 (2010, 42.7%) (Assembly Elections Committee analysis, p. 5).
- City of Los Angeles: the Charter’s matching funds section was last amended by Charter Amendment H, approved March 8, 2011 (Charter sec. 471). In 2019 the Council lowered the qualifying thresholds on the Ethics Commission’s recommendation (City Ethics, July 30, 2019).
What each side says
In the state voter guide. Arguments are the authors’ opinions and are not checked for accuracy by any official agency (arguments).
Argument in favor, signed by Lorrel Plimier of the League of Women Voters of California, Catherine Kennedy of the California Nurses Association and Sen. Tom Umberg (argument in favor):
- “Since 2020, more than $1 billion has been spent on California state candidate races alone.”
- Similar systems work in “fourteen states and 26 localities.”
- A local program costs “as little as $1 per resident each year.”
- It “triples the maximum fines for illegal foreign campaign contributions.”
Their rebuttal, signed by Carmen Balber of Consumer Watchdog, Camerina Davidson of California NOW and Darius Kemp of California Common Cause, says California “is the ONLY state that bans public funding of campaigns” (rebuttal).
Argument against, signed by former FPPC chair Dan Schnur, former FPPC commissioner Colleen McAndrews and Julian Canete of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce (argument against):
- There is “NO LIMIT on the number of candidates who can get taxpayer money and NO LIMIT on how much money they can get.”
- “Strict criteria” are left to “the same politicians who want to get your taxpayer money.”
- Candidates could take public funds and special-interest money at the same time.
Outside the guide.
- Jenny Farrell of the League of Women Voters of California told KQED that after Los Angeles adopted public financing, “14 or 15 of the members were elected using matching funds,” and the Council became majority women and people of color (KQED).
- David Klein of the California Taxpayers Association told KQED that tax dollars should not go “to a candidate to then put out a hit piece mailer on an opponent” (KQED).
- The Daily News editorial board wrote: “If charter cities want to keep experimenting, fine, that’s already allowed” (Daily News).
Checking the main factual claims against official records.
| Claim | Who makes it | What the records show |
|---|---|---|
| No limit on how much public money a candidate can get | No campaign | The measure sets no dollar cap; each program would set its own. It does require spending limits and caps how far a limit may be raised (text). The City of LA’s program, for example, caps payments at $189,000 per Council primary candidate (City Ethics FAQ). |
| No details on “strict criteria” | No campaign | The text requires criteria showing “broad-based support in their district” and bars requiring more than $10 per counted contributor, signatures, or dollar totals above $10 per contributor. It leaves the specific numbers to each government (text). |
| Candidates can take public funds and special-interest money | No campaign | Nothing in the text bars a participating candidate from taking private contributions (text). In Los Angeles, participants may take private contributions under City limits (City Ethics FAQ). |
| It spends no tax dollars by itself | Yes campaign | The Analyst says it “does not create a public campaign finance system” and that state costs would be a few hundred thousand dollars a year for FPPC advice (LAO analysis). |
| As little as $1 per resident a year | Yes campaign | Not addressed by the Analyst. For Los Angeles, the proposed 2026-27 appropriation of $4,275,471 (City budget, p. 372) is about $1.10 per resident at the City’s 3,898,747 residents in the 2020 Census (LAFD report, citing the Census); our calculation. Matching funds actually paid in the 2026 elections were $11.08 million (City Ethics). |
| California is the only state that bans public financing | Yes campaign | We did not verify this against an official source. |
Who supports and opposes it
Supporters
- On the ballot label: League of Women Voters of California, California Nurses Association, Mental Health Advocacy, Social Security Works and Consumer Watchdog (ballot label).
- Named in the argument in favor: California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, California NOW, Californians for Disability Rights, Courage California, Democracy for America, Indivisible California: Statestrong, La Defensa, Money Out Voters In and Voters Right to Know (argument in favor).
- California Democratic Party (CDP positions, Aug. 2, 2026).
- Supporters of SB 42 in 2025 included the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, Los Angeles for Democracy Vouchers, Fair Rep LA, Unrig LA, the Green Party of Los Angeles County, the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFSCME and ACLU California Action (Assembly Elections Committee analysis, pp. 7-9). ACLU California Action reported spending in support in 2026 (Cal-Access raw data export).
Opponents
- On the ballot label: California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California and United Latinos Action (ballot label).
- Former FPPC chair Dan Schnur and former commissioner Colleen McAndrews (argument against).
- Reform California (Carl DeMaio) reported spending against it (Cal-Access raw data export).
- The legislators who voted no (SB 42 votes).
Editorial boards. The Los Angeles Daily News (Sept. 27, 2026), San Diego Union-Tribune (Sept. 4, 2026) and Santa Rosa Press Democrat (Sept. 18, 2026) editorial boards recommend a no vote. We found no LA Times editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026. The California State PTA voted not to take a position (CAPTA).
Money for and against
| For Proposition 4 | Against Proposition 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Committees | One: Yes on 4, Californians for Fair Elections, sponsored by Government Reform Advocates (ID 1488162) | None registered |
| Raised, Jan. 1 to Sept. 19, 2026 | $199,475.23 | $0 |
| Raised, Sept. 20 to 28 (late reports) | $46,000 | $0 |
| Total raised | $245,475.23 | $0 |
| Spent through Sept. 19 | $98,051.59 | $0 |
| Cash on hand, Sept. 19 | $101,306.93 | $0 |
| Independent spending | $3,954.33 (ACLU California Action, California Democratic Party, United Domestic Workers) | $37,500 by Reform California, shared with other props |
Source: the committee’s campaign statements (Jan.-March, April-June, July 1-Sept. 19) and late reports through Sept. 28, from the Cal-Access raw data export of Sept. 30, analyzed by CityHallPass. The Secretary of State’s contribution totals page still listed no committees, as of its Aug. 2 update, when checked on Sept. 30. The committee did not reach the $1 million level that triggers an FPPC top-10 list.
Who is giving
Method: every itemized contribution to committee 1488162 from Jan. 1 to Sept. 28, 2026, from the Cal-Access raw data export, analyzed by CityHallPass. Itemized gifts total $243,600.23; the other $1,875 was reported as contributions under $100 without names. Shares below are of the itemized total.
- 34 donors. Jim Heerwagen of Los Gatos gave $100,000 (41.1%). With the Proteus Fund, the top two gave 59.5%.
- Individuals. 27 people gave $117,125 (48.1%). Eighteen gave $250 or less, $2,125 in all.
- Out of state. The Proteus Fund (Massachusetts, $45,000), Movement Voter PAC (Massachusetts, $25,000), Common Cause (Washington, D.C., $10,925.23) and Stand Up America (New York, $5,000) gave $85,925.23, or 35.3%.
- Political committees. Movement Voter PAC, the California Donor Table Issues Committee ($20,000), Sen. Umberg’s ballot measure committee ($10,550) and Assemblymember Alex Lee’s campaign ($10,000).
- Los Angeles. Two donors with City of Los Angeles addresses gave $100 each.
| Donor | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Jim Heerwagen | $100,000 | 41.1% |
| Proteus Fund | $45,000 | 18.5% |
| Movement Voter PAC | $25,000 | 10.3% |
| California Donor Table Issues Committee | $20,000 | 8.2% |
| Common Cause (in-kind staff time) | $10,925.23 | 4.5% |
| Colonel (Ret.) Tom Umberg Ballot Measure Committee | $10,550 | 4.3% |
| Alex Lee for State Assembly 2026 | $10,000 | 4.1% |
Source: Cal-Access raw data export, analyzed by CityHallPass.
Where committee donors get their money. Movement Voter PAC is a federal PAC (FEC ID C00728360). Its California committee is named “Supporting Prop 4,” and its first California statement, for Sept. 22-23, 2026, reports $1,065,000 in non-California spending and $25,000 to the Yes on 4 committee (Cal-Access raw data export).
How the money was spent. Through Sept. 19 the committee paid 50+1 Strategies $27,500 and AST Consulting $12,500 for consulting, Eldridge Political Partners $13,500, and staff payroll of $10,423.34 (July-Sept. statement).
Outside spending
Independent expenditures reported through Sept. 28, 2026 (Cal-Access raw data export):
- Against: Reform California with Carl DeMaio reported $37,500 for slate mailers, door hangers and campaign management, with the same payments listed against other propositions.
- For: ACLU California Action ($2,200.71 for its voter guide, shared), the California Democratic Party ($1,393.09) and United Domestic Workers of America Issues PAC ($360.53, shared).
Independent analysis
- Legislative Analyst. Costs of any future programs “could be significant for governments that choose to create them,” depending on design (LAO analysis).
- Assembly Elections Committee. Its analysis notes that at least seven charter cities have adopted public financing, but that programs in Richmond and Sacramento have not been funded for recent elections (Assembly Elections Committee analysis, p. 5). The Daily News reports that Oakland’s program has been postponed for fiscal reasons (Daily News).
- Los Angeles experience. The City paid $11.08 million to 2026 City candidates through Sept. 30 (City Ethics election totals). We found no independent evaluation of the LA program’s effects published in 2025 or 2026.
If it passes
- What happens right away. Nothing changes for voters or candidates until a government adopts a program. The FPPC would answer governments’ questions (LAO analysis).
- For Los Angeles. The City’s program continues under its Charter and ordinance. Neither the Legislative Analyst nor the City has said whether the new state conditions would apply to the City’s program; see What it means for the City.
- For the County and school districts. Los Angeles County, LAUSD and other local bodies could adopt programs by statute, ordinance or charter (text, Sec. 85300).
- Legal challenges. The California Taxpayers Association raised First Amendment concerns in its 2025 opposition letter (Assembly Elections Committee analysis, p. 6). We found no filed lawsuit as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Key moments
We found no debate focused on Proposition 4 in news coverage as of Sept. 30, 2026.
- Signed into law (Oct. 2, 2025) (SB 42 history).
- Largest gift (June 25, 2026). Jim Heerwagen gave the Yes committee $100,000 (Cal-Access raw data export).
- Editorial opposition (September 2026). The San Diego Union-Tribune, Press Democrat and Daily News editorial boards came out against it (San Diego Union-Tribune; Press Democrat; Daily News).
Polls
| Pollster | Field dates | Sample | Margin of error | Yes | No | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPIC Statewide Survey | Sept. 4-10, 2026 | 1,103 likely voters (online, Ipsos KnowledgePanel) | ±3.8 points | 42% | 53% | 5% |
| Berkeley IGS, co-sponsored by the LA Times (LA Times via Yahoo; San Jose Inside) | Sept. 15-20, 2026 | 4,512 likely voters (online, English and Spanish) | About ±2 points overall | 35% | 35% | 30% |
Source: PPIC, September 2026, pp. 7, 22 and 30; IGS as reported by the LA Times and San Jose Inside. PPIC found support at 55% among Democrats, 19% among Republicans and 41% among independents, and said half or more would vote no in every major region. The Daily News, citing PPIC, reported 47% support in the Los Angeles area (Daily News).