Proposition 4

Funding

• Earmarked Funds Prohibited. Public money earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety could not be used to fund election campaigns under Proposition 4, but the measure does not establish a funding mechanism and allows state and local governments to determine funding sources, essentially allowing them to shortchange other core government services by using tax dollars for political campaigns instead of services that benefit the community.
• Prohibited Uses of Public Funds. Public funds could not be directly used to pay for legal defense fees or fines. Candidates who receive public financing are permanently prohibited from repaying personal loans from any source after the campaign.

Candidate Contribution and Spending

• Broad-Based Voter Requirement. Proposition 4 states that candidates must meet “strict criteria” to demonstrate the extent of their support, but does not define this term or establish the criteria.

• $10 Contribution Limit. Proposition 4 states that when a program uses contributions to determine eligibility for receiving tax dollars for campaigning, only the first $10 of any contribution may be counted toward that requirement.

• Adjustment for Independent Expenditures. Voluntary expenditure limits must be set by the state and local governments before funds are issued. However, local governments can increase a candidate’s spending cap using a “net supportive funds” formula that accounts for independent expenditures supporting or opposing all candidates in the race (Net Supportive Funds = [Available Candidate Funds + IEs in Support] – IEs in Opposition).

Foreign Contributions

• Increased Penalties for Foreign Contributions. Proposition 4 maintains the existing prohibitions on contributions, expenditures, or independent expenditures made by foreign governments, foreign principals, and foreign nationals in state or local elections, or ballot measure campaigns. However, penalties would increase from the current “equal to the amount contributed” standard to up to three times the illegal contribution or expenditure.

Proposition 4 generated a one-time state cost to be placed on the November 2026 ballot and creates ongoing state administrative costs for the FPPC, estimated at more than $198,000 annually. The FPPC also notes that it potentially could incur significant additional enforcement costs. The measure would create potentially significant and unpredictable local government costs for any jurisdiction that chooses to adopt a system of taxpayer-funded campaigns. Proposition 4 provides no additional information as to how a public financing program should be organized and administered; therefore, local costs would vary widely depending on factors such as program design and staffing capacity. Additionally, the measure does not prohibit future state appropriations for the purpose of public financing, meaning a future Legislature could decide to put state tax dollars toward these programs.

• Statewide Ban on Public Campaign Financing. In 1988, voters approved Proposition 73 (1988), which amended the Political Reform Act of 1974 and prohibited public officers and candidates from accepting public funds for campaign purposes. However, the California Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Bradley (1992) that the ban does not apply to charter cities, allowing them to create local public financing systems.
• Past Public Financing Ballot Measures. California voters rejected two previous attempts to repeal the public financing ban: Proposition 25 (2000) and Proposition 15 (2010).
• Past Public Financing Legislation. SB 1107, signed into law in 2016, attempted to authorize public financing statewide, but the Third District Court of Appeal ruled in Howard Jarvis Association v. Newsom (2019) that such changes must be approved by voters, since Proposition 73 amended the Political Reform Act.

• How Much Tax Money Will Be Used for Political Campaigns Instead of Services for Taxpayers? By removing the legal barrier preventing state and local governments from using tax dollars for political campaigns, Proposition 4 opens the door for the Legislature and local governments to allocate taxpayer dollars toward campaign financing. Because the measure does not establish funding limits, structures, or safeguards, it creates uncertainty about the scale of future public expenditures. While no funding is mandated under Proposition 4 itself, its passage could enable the development of statewide or local systems funded through general tax revenue or newly created funding streams. It would also require additional administrative oversight and program costs, adding to government spending at a time when the state faces a budget deficit.
• Diverting Public Funds for Campaigns. Proposition 4 prohibits education, transportation, and public safety funding from being redirected to public financing programs, but this would not preclude cities or counties from redirecting existing funds to create a public financing program. The measure also would allow public financing programs to be created by redirecting funding from the following special districts: airports, cemeteries, electric utilities, emergency medical services, flood control, garbage, harbor/port operations, healthcare, libraries, mosquito/vector control, parks and recreation, open space, and water.

• FPPC Oversight Gap. Proposition 4 states that the FPPC is not responsible for administering or enforcing local public financing programs. However, the FPPC would retain authority over statewide campaign finance laws and is expected to incur ongoing costs to provide regulatory guidance and address related enforcement issues. Therefore, local public finance structures not under the oversight of the FPPC could be vulnerable to inconsistent enforcement and fraudulent practices.

• Many Types of Office Holders May be Eligible for Public Financing. Proposition 4 provides public financing for potentially many different types of office holders in California, including:

• Public Confidence and Trust in Elections. Proposition 4 would authorize the spending of tax dollars to support candidates whom some taxpayers strongly oppose. Although courts have upheld properly structured voluntary public financing systems, such programs create concerns about public confidence in government and elections. In an era when many voters across the political spectrum already distrust political institutions and election administration, directing public funds to candidates could be viewed by some as government financing politicians, favoring insiders, or using taxpayer money for politics rather than core public services. Even if administered fairly, the perception of self-dealing or partisan advantage could deepen skepticism and further erode trust in democratic institutions. Because Proposition 4 cannot prohibit independent expenditures, public funds may supplement rather than replace private campaign spending, potentially increasing the overall amount of money in politics while raising questions about whether the system is achieving its intended reform goals.