Election 2026 · State of California

Proposition 38: $8.4 billion bond for immunology research

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

Proposition 38 would let the state borrow $8.4 billion by selling bonds for research on immunology and immunotherapy, with at least $4.2 billion for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease. About half would go to one research institute tied to a University of California campus, chosen by the Department of Public Health, and half to research grants. Treatments developed with the money would generally have to be sold in California at a 20% discount.

Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 38.

What would Proposition 38 cost?

The Legislative Analyst estimates the state would pay $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years to repay the bond, about 0.25% of the state General Fund budget. Ten percent of any revenue from discoveries would go to the state until the bond is repaid. The Analyst says that revenue is uncertain and could take decades.

What it means for the City of LA

Half the money, about $4.2 billion, would go to one institute. UCLA says only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, which is being built at the UCLA Research Park on the former Westside Pavilion site in Los Angeles, meets the criteria among UCLA's affiliates. Grant recipients would also have to offer UCLA a role in their clinical trials. Bond payments come from the state General Fund; the Legislative Analyst identifies no direct City cost.

The details

The question on your ballot

Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue. Supporters: Michael J. Fox Foundation; Alzheimer’s Los Angeles; Kidney Cancer Assoc; American Nurses Assoc\CA Opponents: Robert M Kaplan Ph.D.

What would change

What it would mean for Los Angeles

• The likely institute is in Los Angeles. CalMatters found that the criteria fit only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, and a UCLA spokesperson confirmed that among UCLA’s nonprofit affiliates only that institute could qualify (CalMatters via MSN). The institute is part of the UCLA Research Park, which UCLA bought in the former Westside Pavilion mall, 2 miles south of the Westwood campus. The state intended $500 million for the institute and had allocated $200 million at the time (University of California). The Department of Public Health would make the final choice (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• UCLA’s role in grants. Every grant agreement must offer UCLA “the opportunity to substantially participate in and collaborate on any clinical trials” and offer the selected institute a role in the research (text, Sec. 130357(d)-(e)). UCLA’s chancellor appoints one of the seven campus members of the grant council’s executive committee (text, Sec. 130355).
• Cost. Repayment comes from the state General Fund. The Legislative Analyst identifies no direct local cost, and says effects on state health programs such as Medi-Cal are uncertain (analysis).
• Signatures. Los Angeles County supplied 248,653 of the 912,308 raw petition signatures, about 27% (our calculation from the Secretary of State random sample count).

We found no City of Los Angeles analysis or position on the measure as of Sept. 30, 2026.

How it got on the ballot

• Jan. 2, 2026: The Attorney General issued the petition’s title and summary. The proponent is Gary K. Michelson (Secretary of State, eligible measures).
• Feb. 13, 2026: The campaign reported 25% of the signatures needed (Secretary of State, eligible measures).
• Late April-early May 2026: Petitions with 912,308 raw signatures were filed with the counties (random sample count).
• June 23, 2026: The random sample projected 619,635 valid signatures, more than 110% of the 546,651 needed, and the measure became eligible (random sample count).

Vote needed. A majority of votes cast statewide (Cal. Const., Art. II, Sec. 10).

Related past measures. Proposition 71 (2004) created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine with $3 billion in bonds, and Proposition 14 (2020) added $5.5 billion, the Sacramento Bee reported (Sacramento Bee via MSN).

What each side says

In the state voter guide. Arguments are the opinions of their authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency (arguments).

Argument for, signed by Susan Disney Lord of Alzheimer’s Los Angeles, Eugene P. Brandon of the ALS Association and Dr. Brian Shuch of the Kidney Cancer Association (argument in favor):

• Cures: immunotherapies “are already curing cancers like melanoma, lung cancer and leukemia.”
• Federal cuts: the bond offsets “massive federal funding cuts” to research.
• Cost: designed to pay for itself “WITH NO NET COST TO THE STATE OR TAXPAYERS” through the 10% revenue share.
• Patients: a 20% discount in California.
• Safeguards: a 2% administrative cap, public disclosure, audits, and no grants to for-profit companies.

The rebuttal, by Robert M. Kaplan, calls the pay-for-itself claim “speculative” and says research priorities belong in the regular budget (rebuttal).

Argument against, by Robert M. Kaplan (argument against):

• “Ballot-box science”: voters should not pick research topics.
• Borrowing: bonds suit roads and schools, not research whose payoff is uncertain.
• Revenue: universities rarely commercialize therapies themselves, so returns seldom reach the state treasury.
• Discount: companies could favor selling in other states.
• Alternative: a state research agency modeled on the National Institutes of Health, as proposed by Sen. Scott Wiener.

The supporters’ rebuttal, signed by cancer survivor Andrew Dale of Santa Monica, Anne M. Holloway of the Michael J. Fox Foundation and Chris Tarver of the American Nurses Association\California, repeats the 10% revenue return and the 20% discount (rebuttal).

Outside the guide.

• Yes campaign spokesperson Claudia Briggs told CalMatters: “We wrote the measure to ensure a highly qualified nonprofit could receive funding. We can’t speak to the specific institutes that may or may not qualify” (CalMatters via MSN).
• Yes spokesperson Robin Swanson said the institute “very likely meets the criteria” and that “patients don’t have time to wait for another entity to be created” (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• Three retired Legislative Analyst’s Office staff spoke against the measure at a No campaign news conference (Sacramento Bee via MSN).

Checking the main factual claims against official records.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• Michael J. Fox Foundation, Alzheimer’s Los Angeles, Kidney Cancer Association and American Nurses Association\California (ballot label).
• ALS Association, Alzheimer’s Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Prostate Cancer Foundation and Blood Cancer United (argument in favor).
• California Democratic Party, whose executive board endorsed the bond on Aug. 2 (LA Times).

Opponents

• Robert M. Kaplan, a Stanford senior scholar and former NIH associate director, and David Panush of California Health Policy Strategies, co-chairs of the No campaign (Daily News; CalMatters via MSN).
• League of Women Voters of California (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• Former LAO staff Marianne O’Malley, Dan Carson and Judy Heiman (Sacramento Bee via MSN).

Editorial boards. The Daily News and Orange County Register (Daily News, Aug. 23) and the San Diego Union-Tribune (letter responding to the editorial) recommend no. We found no LA Times editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Money for and against

Source: the committees’ campaign statements, loan schedules and late contribution reports in the Cal-Access raw data export dated Sept. 30, 2026, analyzed by CityHallPass (Yes on 38; No on 38). The Secretary of State’s totals page showed $13.2 million through Aug. 2.

Who is giving

Almost all of the Yes campaign’s money traces to Gary K. Michelson (Cal-Access):

• $6 million in gifts in January 2026 from Michelson and his Michelson Center for Public Policy.
• $2.2 million in loans in April 2026 from the same entity, and $12 million from Michelson himself on Aug. 31.
• $13 million in loans in July and August from a second committee, Michelson Center for Public Policy - Yes on 38, which was itself funded by $10 million from Michelson and $3 million from the Michelson Center (Cal-Access).

That is $33.2 million from Michelson and his nonprofit, 86.9% of the committee’s $38.2 million in receipts (our calculation). The only other large donor is Meyer Luskin of Scope Industries, $5 million. The University of California names Michelson and Luskin among the institute’s founding donors (University of California). The loans were reported at 0% interest and were still owed on Sept. 19.

How the money was spent. The committee paid Target Enterprises $19.9 million for television (59.9% of payments) and PCI Campaigns $10.5 million for petitions (31.6%). It also paid the California Democratic Party $256,000 (Cal-Access).

Against. The No committee reported $250 from one donor, $389.76 in in-kind help from California Health Policy Strategies, and a $3,141.88 late gift from one individual (Cal-Access).

Outside spending

Reform California, Assemblymember Carl DeMaio’s committee, filed a $3,000 report marked as supporting Prop. 38. We found no other independent spending through Sept. 29 (Cal-Access raw data export).

Independent analysis

• Legislative Analyst. $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years, about 0.25% of the General Fund, and about 10% more than paying cash after inflation. Possible revenue from discoveries is uncertain in size and timing. Indirect effects on Medi-Cal costs could go either way (analysis).
• CalMatters analysis. Using UC’s latest audit, it found only UCLA’s health system exceeds 3.5 million outpatient visits a year (4.1 million in 2025; UC San Francisco had 3.4 million), so only a UCLA-affiliated institute fits the criteria (CalMatters via MSN).
• Former LAO staff. Judy Heiman said letting council members award grants to their own institutions creates a conflict of interest (Sacramento Bee via MSN). The text lets council members vote on grants in their field but bars them from decisions awarding money to their own employer (text, Sec. 130363(b)).

If it passes

• Effective date. An initiative statute takes effect on the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote (Cal. Const., Art. II, Sec. 10(a)).
• Institute selection. The Department of Public Health picks the institute and signs a funding agreement (text, Sec. 130353). Bonds are sold when the selected institute asks for money in writing (text, Sec. 130376).
• Grant council. The department sets up the council, with UC chancellors naming seven executive members who then add 10 to 15 more (text, Sec. 130355).
• Legal challenges. We found no announced challenge as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Key moments

We found no debate between the campaigns as of Sept. 30, 2026.

• Single-institute questions (July 31, 2026). CalMatters reported that the criteria fit only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy at UCLA; the Yes campaign said it could not speak to which institutes qualify (CalMatters via MSN). The Daily News and Orange County Register editorial board cited the finding in opposing the measure (Daily News).
• Retired LAO staff oppose (Sept. 10, 2026). Three former Legislative Analyst’s Office staff spoke against the measure at a No campaign news conference (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• Michelson loans $12 million (Aug. 31, 2026). The Yes campaign’s largest single transaction (Cal-Access).

Polls

The published report did not give the No or undecided shares. We found no other public poll on Prop. 38.