California
Prop 38Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research
What your vote does
A YES vote means
The state could sell an $8.4 billion bond for immune system research. About half goes to one research institute and half to research grants. 2
A NO vote means
No $8.4 billion bond or $500 million to $600 million yearly repayment (LAO estimate). No institute, grant council or (generally) 20 percent California patient discount. 2
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute. 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.
This is the exact wording from the official voter guide.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop 38 fails, the state does not gain authority to issue this $8.4 billion bond. The Legislative Analyst says companies and government agencies are major funders of medical research. Supporters say federal cuts are disrupting research; opponents say the normal budget process should set priorities. 23
Why it’s on the ballot now
Immunology is the study of the body's immune system. Immunotherapy builds treatments that help the immune system fight disease better. 2
U.S. medical research funding totaled about $300 billion in 2023. Companies and government agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, are the major funding sources. 2
California voters approved two earlier bond measures, Prop 71 (2004) and Prop 14 (2020). Together they allowed $8.5 billion in bonds for stem cell research. 2
The measure's own findings, which argue for it, say research needs a steady source of funding so it is not stalled by funding shortages. 4
The money
The Legislative Analyst (LAO) says repayment would cost $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years, about 0.25 percent of the General Fund. Adjusted for inflation, borrowing makes the total about 10 percent more than paying up front. Research revenue could offset part or all of it, but the LAO says the amount is uncertain and offsetting the cost could take decades. See the money chart for the latest filed totals. 21
- Amount
- $8.4 billion bond; $500 million to $600 million a year to repay
- How long
- About 20 years of bond payments
- Who pays
- Bond payments would come from the state General Fund, the account that pays for most public services. Ten percent of any revenue from funded discoveries must go to the state, and it goes first to the General Fund until the bond cost is repaid. 2
Who bears the cost
State government (the General Fund, paid from general tax revenue)
If it passes
- The LAO says the General Fund cost to repay the bond would be $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years. That is about 0.25 percent of the General Fund budget. Interest makes the total about 10 percent more than paying up front, after inflation. 2
- The LAO says the state could receive revenue from funded research. It says the amount is uncertain but could be significant, and offsetting the bond cost could take decades. Ten percent of revenue goes to the General Fund until the bond is repaid. 2
Who’s behind it
How it got on the ballot: Citizen petition
The ballot label calls it an "Initiative Statute." The legal text says this initiative measure "is submitted to the people" under Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. 14
Where the support comes from
Placed by who endorsed it and who funded it, not by our opinion. How we place measures
The California Democratic Party and the California Republican Party both recommend Yes on Prop 38, while the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a taxpayer group, recommends No. The San Francisco Democratic Party also supports it. The League of Women Voters of California, a good-government group, and the San Francisco Green Party oppose it. The largest donors to committees supporting it are Michelson Center for Public Policy and Meyer Luskin, and to the committee opposing it, Dean Marks and California Health Policy Strategies, LLC. 78910561112
Endorsements
| Group | YES | NO | Neutral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive slate | |||
| San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters | No | ||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Moderate slate | |||
| GrowSF | No | ||
| Political parties | |||
| San Francisco Democratic Party | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Green Party | No | ||
| California Democratic Party | Yes | ||
| California Republican Party | Yes | ||
| Other groups | |||
| San Francisco Women's Political Committee | No | ||
| Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club | No | ||
| Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club | No | ||
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association | No | ||
| League of Women Voters of California | No | ||
Follow the money
YESTop donors
- Michelson Center for Public Policy$17.9M
Who is this?
Nonprofit founded by Gary K. Michelson, who is its director and a co-founder of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. 1
- Meyer Luskin$4.1M
Who is this?
Co-founder of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. 1
Their stake
Luskin co-founded the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, which a UCLA spokesperson said is the only UCLA-affiliated nonprofit that could meet Prop 38's rules. The Yes on 38 campaign said the language isn't uniquely tailored to it. 1
From public records, not their own explanation.
- California Democratic Party$21.5K
Who is this?
State branch of the Democratic Party in California, based in Sacramento. 1
- United Domestic Workers of America Issues PAC$1,227
Who is this?
A committee of United Domestic Workers (UDW). The union's website says it represents more than 250,000 home care and family child care providers in California. 1
- United Domestic Workers of America Action Fund$1,177
- The top 5 donors gave 31% of this side’s money.
- 0% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $13K
Committees: Michelson Center for Public Policy, Inc. - Yes on 38 (Nonprofit 501 (c)(4)); Yes on 38: Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures, Sponsored by the Michelson Center for Public Policy
NOTop donors
- Dean Marks$5,000
- California Health Policy Strategies, LLC$3,390
- Robert Kaplan$3,142
- Laurence Lang$250
- Marianne Omalley$100
- The top 5 donors gave 99% of this side’s money.
- 0% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $5,206
Committees: No on Proposition 38
- Yes on 38: Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures, Sponsored by the Michelson Center for Public Policy (FPPC 1485847) supports or opposes several measures; the Secretary of State attributes $58,229,216 of its $71,229,216 to this one. Donor amounts here are scaled by that same share (82%).
- YES side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $13,004, mostly by: Reform California with Carl DeMaio - Ballot Measure Committee $5,500; Million Voter Project Action Fund, Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations $5,299; REPUBLICAN PARTY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY $2,205. Separate from total_raised.
- NO side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $5,206, mostly by: Youth Power PAC $3,816; Community Partners $1,040; Youth Power PAC Sponsored by PowerCA Action $350. Separate from total_raised.
- Committee totals are the Secretary of State's per-measure 'Total Reported Contributions' through 2026-10-22 (secretary of state page), plus later 24-hour reports from the Cal-Access bulk export built 2026-10-28. Donors, geography and independent expenditures come from the itemized Cal-Access filings. Contributions to committees that back several measures are credited pro rata to the share the Secretary of State assigns to this measure.
- Source cutoff: the Cal-Access export used was built 2026-10-27 (UTC) and the Secretary of State's per-measure totals run through 2026-10-22. as_of is the latest filing from this measure's own committees, which can be earlier.
- Money given to a committee by another committee is shown as that committee, not the money's original source (e.g. a union's issues PAC, not its members). Donor type is inferred from the name; check the filing for sponsors.
Sources: CA Secretary of State: Proposition 38 contribution totals · Cal-Access raw campaign finance data export · FPPC Top 10 Contributors, November 2026 General Election
The strongest case for and against
Each side’s best argument, written as its supporters would make it. Neither is our view.
Strongest case for
Supporters include the Alzheimer's Association, the Michael J. Fox Foundation and the ALS Association. They say immunotherapies are already curing cancers like melanoma, lung cancer and leukemia. They argue federal funding cuts are disrupting research, and Prop 38 gives steady funding. Supporters say Prop 38 is designed to pay for itself, because ten percent of any revenue from funded research must go to the state. The LAO says this revenue is uncertain but could be significant, and that offsetting the bond cost is also uncertain but could take decades. They also say at least half the money goes to cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's research, that California patients get a 20 percent discount, and that it has a 2 percent cap on state administrative costs and independent audits. 32
Strongest case against
Robert M Kaplan, Ph.D., signed both the official argument against and the rebuttal to the argument in favor. Kaplan says the claim that Prop 38 will pay for itself is speculative. Kaplan argues bonds suit roads and schools, not research, because many studies never lead to products that sell. Kaplan says scientific review, not election campaigns, should set research priorities, and that conditions like mental illness also deserve attention. Kaplan says the state already faces a budget deficit. Kaplan says taxpayers would owe about $500 million a year for about 25 years; the LAO estimates $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years. Kaplan also says required discounts in California could push companies to sell in other states first. 32
Sources
Every fact on this page links to one of these sources.
- Ballot label: title (table of contents) and summary (Quick Reference Guide), Proposition 38 (en edition), CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 3, 8
- Proposition 38: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1-2
- Proposition 38: Arguments and rebuttals, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 3-4
- Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Law, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1-11
- San Francisco Democratic Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- San Francisco Green Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- California Democratic Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- California Republican Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- League of Women Voters of California: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- How endorsers line up on Prop 38: this guide's coalition groupings (endorsement method 1.0, data as of 2026-10-27)
- Campaign finance filings as of 2026-10-22 (compiled by this guide from CA Secretary of State: Proposition 38 contribution totals; data/money/ca-2026-11-p38.json, main@0dcbec8)