Proposition 4: Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute.
Statewide — all of California
General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026
- Placed on the ballot by the Legislature as SB 42 (Chapter 245, Statutes of 2025). Final legislative votes: Senate 29 ayes, 8 noes; Assembly 59 ayes, 20 noes.[1][4]
The question on the ballot
REPEALS PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. Current law prohibits state and local governments from using public funds for election campaigns except in charter cities and counties. This measure repeals that prohibition and allows state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs for candidates who agree to specified spending limits and meet eligibility criteria. Prohibits public funding programs from using funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Prohibits candidates from using public funds for legal defense costs, fines, or repayment of personal loans to campaigns. Triples maximum fine for campaign contributions by foreign entities.[1]
Lifts the ban on using public funds for candidates' campaigns, allowing state and local governments to create public campaign financing programs in the future; it does not itself create one. Per the Legislative Analyst, any future program could not use funds meant for education, transportation or public safety; candidates could receive funds only if they show broad-based support in their district and agree to spending limits; funds could not pay legal defense fees, fines, or repay a candidate's personal campaign loan. The Fair Political Practices Commission would not be required to administer or enforce local programs, but could be asked for guidance. Fiscal impact: state costs of a few hundred thousand dollars per year for the FPPC; the cost of any future programs could be significant and would depend on future decisions.[1][2]
A YES vote means
State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for public office candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be used, how the public funds could be used, and who could receive them.
A NO vote means
State and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates.
The law today
The Political Reform Act bans the use of public funds for political candidates' campaigns; the ban applies to most elected offices at the state and local level but not to city office elections in certain charter cities (the Legislative Analyst names Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland and Berkeley as examples that provide public funds to certain campaigns). The Fair Political Practices Commission enforces and interprets the Act.[2]
Official fiscal estimate
Per the Legislative Analyst: Proposition 4 does not create a public campaign finance program, but the cost of any program a government chose to create "could be significant," depending on which governments act and how programs are designed. State costs for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer guidance requests would be "a few hundred thousand dollars each year," much less than 0.1 percent of the General Fund budget.[2]
Arguments made for
- Official argument in favor, signed by Lorrel Plimier (League of Women Voters of California), Catherine Kennedy (California Nurses Association) and State Senator Tom Umberg: "Proposition 4 does not create a public financing program. It simply gives local governments the option to adopt one if they choose."[3]
- Same argument: "Programs like small-dollar donation matching help candidates compete without relying on wealthy donors. However, most California communities are banned from using these tools, allowing the influence of big money to grow."[3]
Arguments made against
- Official argument against, signed by Dan Schnur and Colleen McAndrews (former Fair Political Practices Commission officials) and Julian Canete (California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce): "Proposition 4 has NO LIMIT on the number of candidates who can get taxpayer money and NO LIMIT on how much money they can get!"[3]
- Same argument: "Under Proposition 4, candidates can raise money from special interests AND get public funding too."[3]
On record in support
- League of Women Voters of California (signer of the official argument in favor)[3]
- California Nurses Association (signer of the official argument in favor)[3]
- State Senator Tom Umberg (signer of the official argument in favor)[3]
- Consumer Watchdog, signed by Carmen Balber (official rebuttal to the argument against)[3]
- California Common Cause, signed by Darius Kemp (official rebuttal to the argument against)[3]
- Movement Voter PAC (FEC PAC ID C00728360), the only committee the Secretary of State lists as supporting Prop 4[5]
On record in opposition
- Dan Schnur, former Fair Political Practices Commission official (signer of the official argument against)[3]
- Colleen McAndrews, former Fair Political Practices Commission official (signer of the official argument against)[3]
- California Taxpayers Association, signed by Robert Gutierrez (official rebuttal to the argument in favor)[3]
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, signed by Jon Coupal (official rebuttal to the argument in favor)[3]
- California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, signed by Julian Canete (official argument against)[3]
Campaign money
Per the Secretary of State's ballot-measure contribution totals, through October 6, 2026: $235,157 reported in support, all by one committee (Movement Voter PAC, FEC PAC ID C00728360, supporting Prop 4). No committees opposing the measure were identified as of that date.[5]
Research notes & limits
All text from the Official Voter Information Guide. Arguments are the authors' opinions and have not been checked for accuracy by any agency. The measure is a legislative statute referred to voters because it repeals a voter-approved prohibition.
Sources · 5
Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.
- 1.Proposition 4: Official Title and Summary · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (Nov. 3, 2026) · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 2.Proposition 4: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst · California Legislative Analyst's Office, via Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 3.Proposition 4: Arguments and Rebuttals · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 4.Proposition 4: Summary and What Your Vote Means · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 5.Proposition 4: Ballot Measure Total Contributions (through 10/06/2026) · California Secretary of State · 2026-10-19 Official record