San Francisco and California Ballot Backstory · Why is this on my ballot?
Prop 4: summary
Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns
Mark your own choices here. You may bring this sheet into the voting booth.
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.
A NO vote means
The ban on public money for most state and local campaigns stays. Charter cities like San Francisco keep their programs. Foreign-contribution fines don't change.
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
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.
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.
Some charter cities are exempt. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland and Berkeley already give public funds to some city campaigns.
In 2025, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 42 to lift the ban, and sent it to voters for approval.
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.
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.
Needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass Some measures need 55% or two-thirds of votes to pass. This one needs only a simple majority.Who bears the cost
State government (the General Fund)
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.
State and local governments that choose to create public campaign programs
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.
The strongest case for and against
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.
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.