California
Prop 4Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns
What your vote does
A YES vote means
State and local governments could create public funding programs for candidates' campaigns, within rules the measure sets. Maximum fines for foreign campaign contributions triple. 2
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute. 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 the exact wording from the official voter guide.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop 4 fails, current law stays. The Political Reform Act keeps its ban on using public funds for candidates’ campaigns, except for city elections in certain charter cities. 3
Why it’s on the ballot now
California's Political Reform Act bans public funds for candidates' campaigns. The ban covers most state and local offices. 3
Some charter cities are exempt. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland and Berkeley already give public funds to some city campaigns. 3
In 2025, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 42 to lift the ban, and sent it to voters for approval. 53
The measure's own findings, which argue for it, say rising campaign costs can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those donors too much influence over government decisions. 5
The money
Prop 4 does not create a public campaign finance program. The LAO says the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) likely would need more legal staff, costing the state a few hundred thousand dollars a year. The LAO says program costs could be significant for governments that choose to create them. See the money chart for the latest filed totals. 3
- Amount
- A few hundred thousand dollars a year in state costs (LAO estimate)
- How long
- Ongoing (no end date)
- Who pays
- The state would pay for any extra FPPC staff. Any government that chooses to create a program later would pay for it. That money cannot come from funds meant for education, transportation or public safety. Public funds cannot pay legal defense fees, fines or a candidate's personal campaign loan. 32
Who bears the cost
State government (the General Fund)
If it passes
- The Legislative Analyst (LAO) says the Fair Political Practices Commission would likely hire more legal staff to answer questions. State costs would be a few hundred thousand dollars each year. 3
- The LAO says this amount is much less than one-tenth of 1 percent (0.1 percent) of the state’s total General Fund budget. 3
State and local governments that choose to create public campaign programs
What they already pay
- Some charter cities already provide public funds to certain campaigns under current law. The LAO lists Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland and Berkeley as examples. 3
If it passes
- The LAO says Prop 4 does not create a public campaign finance program. The LAO says costs could be significant for governments that choose to create one, depending on who creates programs and how they are designed. 3
Who’s behind it
How it got on the ballot: State Legislature
The Legislature put it on the ballot by passing Senate Bill 42 (SB 42): 29 to 8 in the Senate and 59 to 20 in the Assembly. 2
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 recommends Yes on Prop 4, while the California Republican Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a taxpayer group, recommend No. SPUR and the League of Women Voters of California, both good-government groups, also support it, while GrowSF, an advocacy group, and the Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club, a Democratic club, oppose it. The largest donor to committees supporting Prop 4 is California Nurses Association Political Action Committee (CNA-PAC). No committee opposing Prop 4 has reported contributions. 91011712681314
Endorsements
| Group | YES | NO | Neutral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive slate | |||
| San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters | Yes | ||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Moderate slate | |||
| GrowSF | No | ||
| Political parties | |||
| San Francisco Democratic Party | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Green Party | Yes | ||
| California Democratic Party | Yes | ||
| California Republican Party | No | ||
| Labor | |||
| California Teachers Association | No position | ||
| Other groups | |||
| SPUR | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Women's Political Committee | Yes | ||
| Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club | No | ||
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association | No | ||
| League of Women Voters of California | Yes | ||
Follow the money
YESTop donors
- California Nurses Association Political Action Committee (CNA-PAC)$250K
Who is this?
A committee named for the California Nurses Association. A National Nurses United web page says the association has more than 100,000 members in California. 1
Their stake
The president of the California Nurses Association signed the official ballot argument for Prop 4. It says Prop 4 lets voters and local governments choose to use public financing for campaigns. 2
From public records, not their own explanation.
- Movement Voter PAC Begining Balances as of Registarion$235.2K
Who is this?
Political action committee set up in 2019 in Northampton, Massachusetts. InfluenceWatch says its sister groups include the Movement Voter Project, a clearinghouse for Democratic donors to give to small political groups. 1
- Jim Heerwagen$100K
- Million More Voters, Sponsored by the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO$100K
- Aclu Of Northern California Election Issues Committee$100K
- Proteus Fund$45K
- Movement Voter PAC$25K
- California Donor Table Issues Committee$20K
- Common Cause$12.2K
- Colonel (Ret.) Tom Umberg Ballot Measure Committee$10.6K
- The top 5 donors gave 80% of this side’s money.
- 34% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $39.9K
Committees: Movement Voter PAC (FEC PAC ID C00728360) Supporting Prop 4; Yes on 4, Californians for Fair Elections
- YES side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $39,934, mostly by: California Democratic Party $12,220; ACLU California Action Issues Committee $8,989; Million Voter Project Action Fund, Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations $5,299. Separate from total_raised.
- No opposing committee has reported any contributions as of the refresh date.
- 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 4 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, including the League of Women Voters of California, the California Nurses Association and State Senator Tom Umberg, say the amount of money in California elections is distorting democracy. They say more than $1 billion has been spent on state candidate races since 2020, and that running for office often takes personal wealth or wealthy donors. They say California is the only state that bans public campaign funding, and that similar systems have elected thousands of candidates in fourteen states and 26 localities. They say the measure creates no program and leaves the details to each community, but that any program must set spending limits and require broad support. They say a program can cost as little as $1 per resident a year. 4
Strongest case against
Opponents, including the California Taxpayers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Dan Schnur, a former FPPC chair, say Prop 4 repeals a ban that voters approved. They say it sets no limit on how many candidates can get public money or how much each can get. They say more than 60 candidates ran for Governor in the last primary. They say the rules for who qualifies are left to the same officials who would benefit, and that candidates could take public money and special-interest money. They warn of more negative ads and junk mail. They say the money would come from taxpayers, leaving less for schools and public safety. 4
Sources
Every fact on this page links to one of these sources.
- Ballot label: title (table of contents) and summary (Quick Reference Guide), Proposition 4 (en edition), CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 3, 6
- Proposition 4: Official Title and Summary (prepared by the Attorney General), CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1
- Proposition 4: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1-2
- Proposition 4: Arguments and rebuttals, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 3-4
- Proposition 4: Text of Proposed Law, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1-4
- GrowSF: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- SPUR: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club: 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 4: 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 4 contribution totals; data/money/ca-2026-11-p4.json, main@0dcbec8)