Prop 4: Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns

Summary

Proposition 4 is a state law passed by the Legislature as Senate Bill 42 (Umberg) and sent to the voters. Current law, the Political Reform Act, bans state and most local governments from using public money for candidates' election campaigns, with an exception for city elections in some charter cities.

Proposition 4 repeals that ban, so state and local governments could create public campaign finance programs in the future if they choose to. The measure does not create a program or spend money itself. It sets rules for any future program: public funds earmarked for education, transportation or public safety may not be used for campaigns, participating candidates must agree to spending limits and meet criteria that require broad-based support in their district, public funds may not pay legal defense fees or fines or repay a candidate's personal loan, and programs may not favor incumbents or discriminate by political party. It also raises the maximum fine for campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign entities.^S1^S2^S3^S4^S7

What a yes or no vote means

Yes means

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.^S3^S4^S6

No means

A no vote means state and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates.^S3^S4^S6

How it works

Proposition 4 is a legislative statute, not an initiative. It was passed as Senate Bill 42 of the 2025 to 2026 Regular Session (Chapter 245, Statutes of 2025) and is submitted to the people under Section 10 of Article II of the California Constitution. The voter guide lists the final votes as Senate 29 ayes and 8 noes, Assembly 59 ayes and 20 noes.^S1^S4^S6^S7
Current law: the Legislative Analyst says the Political Reform Act bans the use of public funds for political candidates' campaigns, and that the ban applies to most elected offices at the state and local level. The ban does not apply to city office elections in certain charter cities. The Legislative Analyst names Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland and Berkeley as current examples of charter cities that provide public funds to certain campaigns.^S2^S3
What the measure changes: it lifts the ban on using public funds for political candidates' campaigns. The Legislative Analyst says removing the ban allows state and local governments to create public campaign financing programs in the future if they wish, and that the measure does not create a public campaign finance system for the state or local governments directly.^S2^S3
Rules the measure sets for any future program: money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety cannot be used for campaigns. Candidates can receive public funds only if they show broad-based support in their district and agree to spending limits and other program rules. Public funds cannot be used for legal defense fees or fines, or to repay a candidate's personal campaign loan. The Legislative Analyst says state and local governments can design and implement their own programs within these broad rules, and that many key design decisions are left to future state and local decision makers.^S1^S2^S3
Statutory mechanics: the measure amends Section 85300 of the Government Code. A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public money for seeking elective office if the state or a local government establishes a dedicated fund for that purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution or charter, and if the money is available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference, and if the entity has established criteria for determining a candidate's qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution or charter. It also states that candidates shall abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify for public funds.^S7
How the measure defines strict criteria: the text defines strict criteria as the requirements set by statute, ordinance or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds, and says those criteria must require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district, such as by requiring small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents. If a minimum number of small-dollar contributors is required, the largest contribution that may be required for a contributor to count is ten dollars. The criteria may not include requirements that candidates receive a specified number of signatures or raise a specified total of more than ten dollars per contributor.^S7
Expenditure limits: the text says a statute, ordinance or charter may increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate. The increase may not exceed the highest dollar amount of net supportive funds of any other candidate for the same office, plus independent expenditures against the participating candidate, minus independent expenditures in support of that candidate. The text defines available candidate funds, independent expenditures in support and against, net supportive funds, expenditure limits and public funds.^S7
Role of the Fair Political Practices Commission: the measure says the Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local government agency, but that officials could ask the Commission for guidance. The text also says some subdivisions of the amended section may be amended by statute under subdivision (a) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, and that the remaining subdivisions may be amended only by a statute that complies with subdivision (b) of Section 81012.^S2^S3^S7
Foreign contributions: the measure amends Section 85320 of the Government Code. A foreign government, foreign principal or foreign national may not make a contribution, expenditure or independent expenditure in connection with a state or local ballot measure or the election of a candidate to state or local office, and no person or committee may solicit or accept such a contribution. A violation is a misdemeanor, and in addition to other penalties the person shall be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended but not exceeding three times that amount. The title and summary describes this as tripling the maximum fine for campaign contributions by foreign entities.^S1^S7
The same section defines who counts: foreign national means a person who is not a United States citizen and is not a lawfully admitted permanent resident, and does not include a person granted deferred action under the federal DACA program whose deferred action has not expired. Foreign principal includes a foreign political party, a person outside the United States unless the person is an individual United States citizen or an entity organized under United States or state law with its principal place of business in the United States, an entity organized under the laws of or based in a foreign country, and a domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation if the decision to contribute is made by an officer, director or management employee who is neither a citizen nor a lawfully admitted permanent resident. The section does not prohibit a contribution by a lawfully admitted permanent resident.^S7
Findings: the Legislature's findings say the increasing cost of campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, that such influence can undermine public trust, that special interests contribute more to incumbents than to challengers, and that the absolute prohibition on public campaign financing unfairly favors incumbents. The findings cite studies published between 2008 and 2022 and decisions of the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, including Johnson v. Bradley (1992), Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011).^S7
Context from nonpartisan reporting: CalMatters says the measure would reverse a 1988 ban on public campaign funds for the state and most local governments, and that five California cities currently have public financing for local offices, including Berkeley and San Francisco. Supporters say thousands of candidates have been elected in fourteen states and 26 localities using similar systems, and that California is the only state that bans public funding of campaigns. Those comparisons are the supporters' claims, as printed in the voter guide.^S5^S6^S10^S11

Fiscal impact

The Legislative Analyst's summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact is: 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.

The Legislative Analyst explains that the measure does not create a public campaign finance program, but that it allows state and local governments to create one in the future, and that the cost of those programs could be significant for the governments that choose to create them.

The total cost would depend on which governments created programs and how the programs were designed. The Legislative Analyst says state and local officials would likely ask the Commission for guidance, which likely would require the Commission to hire more legal staff, and that the resulting state cost is much less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state's total General Fund budget.

Supporters say a local program could cost as little as $1 per resident each year and that the measure itself spends no taxpayer money. Opponents say the measure has no limit on the number of candidates who could receive public funds or on how much they could receive, and that it does not say where the money would come from. Both of those are campaign claims, as printed in the voter guide.^S1^S2^S3^S4^S5^S6

Who benefits and who pays

Who benefits

Candidates who lack personal wealth or access to wealthy donors: the Legislative Analyst says candidates can receive public funds only if they show broad-based support in their district and agree to spending limits and other program rules, which supporters describe as letting qualified candidates compete. This applies only if a state or local government later creates a program, which the measure does not do itself.^S2^S3^S4
State and local governments that want to create a public campaign finance program: the Legislative Analyst says the measure lifts the ban and allows them to create programs in the future if they wish, and that they can design and implement their own programs within the broad rules the measure sets.^S2^S3
Supporters' claims: they say public financing helps curb the influence of private money, encourages candidates without significant financial backing to run and empowers small donors, and that programs such as small-dollar donation matching are a proven model used in other states and localities. These are the supporters' arguments as printed in the voter guide and summarized by CalMatters.^S5^S6^S10^S11
The Fair Political Practices Commission would gain workload rather than money: the Legislative Analyst says the Commission likely would need to hire more legal staff to answer guidance questions from state and local governments, funded by the few hundred thousand dollars a year the measure's fiscal estimate provides for.^S2^S3
Organizations listed as supporters in the voter guide's summary page and argument: League of Women Voters of CA, California Nurses Association, Mental Health Advocacy, Social Security Works, Consumer Watchdog, California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, California National Organization for Women, Californians for Disability Rights, Courage California, Democracy for America, Indivisible California: Statestrong, La Defensa, Money Out Voters In and Voters Right to Know.^S4^S5^S6

Who pays

Residents and taxpayers of any state or local jurisdiction that later adopts a public campaign finance program: the Legislative Analyst says the measure does not create a program, but that the cost of programs created in the future could be significant for the governments that choose to create them, and that the total depends on which governments act and how the programs are designed. The money for a program would come from a dedicated fund the government establishes by statute, ordinance, resolution or charter.^S2^S3^S7
State General Fund: the Legislative Analyst estimates ongoing costs of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions about public campaign finance programs, an amount it describes as much less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state's total General Fund budget.^S1^S2^S3^S4
Funds that may not be used: the measure prohibits public funding programs from using money earmarked by any state or local entity for education, transportation or public safety. That limit is in the Attorney General's title and summary and in the text of the measure.^S1^S4^S7
Foreign governments, foreign principals and foreign nationals: the measure raises the maximum penalty for illegal foreign campaign contributions and expenditures to three times the amount contributed or expended, in addition to a misdemeanor fine equal to the amount involved. Supporters describe this as tripling the maximum fine. The title and summary lists this among the measure's changes.^S1^S5^S7
Opponents' claims: they say the measure lets politicians use taxpayer money for their own campaigns, that public funds would come from taxpayers and mean less money for schools, public safety and healthcare, and that it gives no limit on how much a candidate could receive. These are the opponents' claims, as printed in the voter guide.^S4^S5^S6

Support and opposition

Supporters

Total raised: $235,157

As of: October 6, 2026

Organizations

League of Women Voters of California
California Nurses Association
Mental Health Advocacy
Social Security Works
Consumer Watchdog
California Clean Money Campaign
California Common Cause
California National Organization for Women
Californians for Disability Rights
Courage California
Democracy for America
Indivisible California: Statestrong
La Defensa
Money Out Voters In
Voters Right to Know
California Democratic Party
Government Reform Advocates

Key arguments

Supporters say California is the only state that bans public funding of campaigns and that communities in all 49 other states have the right to adopt public financing, and that special interests want to keep the ban to protect their power. These are the supporters' claims, as printed in the voter guide.^S4^S5^S6
Supporters say the amount of money in California elections distorts democracy, that more than $1 billion has been spent on California state candidate races alone since 2020, and that running for office often requires either personal wealth or access to wealthy donors. These are the supporters' figures and characterizations.^S5^S6
Supporters say the measure does not create a public financing program and does not spend a single taxpayer dollar, that it simply gives state and local governments the option to adopt one if they choose, and that if a community does adopt one the cost could be as little as $1 per resident each year.^S5^S6
Supporters list taxpayer safeguards: candidates must meet strict eligibility criteria and abide by spending limits to qualify, public funding may not favor incumbents or discriminate based on political party, and public funds may not be used for legal defense or fines.^S4^S5^S6
Supporters say the measure triples the maximum fines for illegal foreign campaign contributions and expenditures, strengthening penalties for interference in California elections. The Attorney General's title and summary also states that the measure triples the maximum fine for campaign contributions by foreign entities.^S1^S4^S5^S6^S7
The voter guide argument in favor is signed by Lorrel Plimier, co-president of the League of Women Voters of California, Catherine Kennedy, president of the California Nurses Association, and Tom Umberg, California State Senator. The rebuttal to the argument against is signed by Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, Camerina Davidson, president of the California National Organization for Women, and Darius Kemp, executive director of California Common Cause.^S5^S6
The Secretary of State's summary page lists the League of Women Voters of CA, the California Nurses Association, Mental Health Advocacy, Social Security Works and Consumer Watchdog as supporters. CalMatters lists California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters and the California Democratic Party as endorsing supporters, and lists The Sacramento Bee among media outlets that endorsed a yes position.^S4^S10
The voter guide gives a supporting campaign committee, Yes on Proposition 4, Californians for Fair Elections, sponsored by Government Reform Advocates, with a website at CAFairElections.org. The Secretary of State's contribution totals page reports $235,157 in total contributions to this measure through 10/06/2026, reported by one committee, MOVEMENT VOTER PAC (FEC PAC ID C00728360) SUPPORTING PROP 4.^S4^S6^S8

Opponents

Organizations

California Taxpayers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Family Business Association of California
United Latinos Action
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Reform California

Key arguments

Opponents say the measure repeals a voter approved law that prohibits candidates from using taxpayer money to run for office, and that Sacramento politicians put it on the ballot to get access to taxpayer money to fund their own campaigns. These are the opponents' claims, as printed in the voter guide.^S4^S5^S6
Opponents say the measure has no limit on the number of candidates who could get taxpayer money and no limit on how much a candidate could get, that there is no limit on how much candidates could spend, and that it would lead to more negative ads, mail and text messages. They point to more than 60 candidates who ran for Governor in the June primary as an example of how many candidates could seek funding.^S5^S6
Opponents say the measure does not prohibit special interest money and allows a candidate to receive public funds and special interest money at the same time, and that it does not say where the money to fund campaigns would come from.^S5^S6
Opponents say the measure's reference to strict criteria provides no details, quoting the text's definition that strict criteria means the requirements set by statute, ordinance or charter, and arguing that no such criteria currently exist and that the same politicians who would receive the money would set them.^S5^S6^S7
Opponents say the measure is written so broadly that it could allow every state or local candidate to receive public funding, including candidates who have not qualified for the ballot and candidates for county political party committees.^S5^S6
Opponents say the measure would force taxpayers to subsidize political candidates they may not want to support and could direct funding to fraudulent candidates, and that establishing the system would be expensive for state and local governments. This is CalMatters' summary of the opponents' arguments.^S10^S11
The voter guide argument against is signed by Dan Schnur, former chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Colleen McAndrews, former commissioner of the Fair Political Practices Commission, and Julian Canete, president of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. The rebuttal to the argument in favor is signed by Robert Gutierrez, president of the California Taxpayers Association, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Dan Schnur.^S5^S6
The Secretary of State's summary page lists the California Taxpayers Assn, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn, the Family Business Assn of California and United Latinos Action as opponents. CalMatters lists the California Taxpayers Association and Reform California as opponents and lists The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle among media outlets that endorsed a no position. The voter guide lists the California Taxpayers Association website for the side against the measure.^S4^S5^S6^S10
The Secretary of State's contribution totals page for this measure says no committees were identified as opposing it as of 10/06/2026, so no opposing committee total is reported. The Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list for the November 2026 general election, last modified 10/14/2026, has no entry for this proposition, because its only reported committee raised less than the $1,000,000 threshold for that list.^S8^S9

How it could affect your household

Household type	Effect	Explanation	Confidence
Homeowner	Unclear	The measure creates no program, tax, fee or benefit by itself, so it does not directly change what a homeowner pays or receives. Money for any future program would come from a dedicated fund the homeowner's own city, county or the state would have to establish, and the measure bars use of money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety. Whether a homeowner's taxes would pay for a program depends on a future decision by their government that the cited sources cannot predict.^S2^S3^S7	Low confidence
Renter	Unclear	Renters are not affected directly by the measure, which creates no program and changes no tax, fee or rent rule. If a renter's city, county or the state later adopts a public campaign finance program, its cost would fall on that jurisdiction's budget, and the measure says public funds earmarked for education, transportation or public safety may not be used. Whether that happens is left to future decisions.^S2^S3^S7	Low confidence
W-2 earner ($100k to $250k)	Neutral	The measure changes no tax rate and creates no tax on wages. Its one documented state cost is a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer guidance questions, which the Legislative Analyst describes as much less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state's total General Fund budget. A larger effect would only come if a future program were created in this person's jurisdiction, which the measure does not do.^S1^S2^S3	Medium confidence
High earner (over $1M)	Neutral	The measure changes no personal income tax rate, adds no bracket and creates no surcharge, so it does not directly change this taxpayer's state taxes. The direct changes are rules for future public campaign finance programs and higher maximum fines for illegal foreign campaign contributions and expenditures. The money for any future program would come from a dedicated fund a state or local government would have to establish.^S1^S2^S7	High confidence
Small business owner	Unclear	The measure imposes no business tax, fee or filing requirement and does not change campaign contribution limits for businesses. Its only spending channel is a future public campaign finance program in the owner's jurisdiction, funded from a dedicated fund that government would establish, and the measure bars use of money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety. Opponents argue programs would take money that could otherwise go to schools, public safety and healthcare, which are services businesses also rely on; that is the opponents' claim.^S2^S5^S6^S7	Low confidence
Retiree	Unclear	The measure changes no tax rate on retirement income, Social Security or pensions, and it creates no program or benefit for retirees. It also does not change the state services a retiree uses. Any cost to a retiree would come from a later decision by their city, county or the state to create a public campaign finance program, funded from a dedicated fund, and the measure bars use of funds earmarked for education, transportation or public safety.^S2^S3^S7	Low confidence
Local government services user	Mixed	Direct effect: the measure gives state and local governments authority they do not have now, so a jurisdiction could create a public campaign finance program and pay for it from a dedicated fund it establishes. The Legislative Analyst says the cost of such programs could be significant for the governments that choose to create them, which competes with other uses of that government's money, and that the state would also pay a few hundred thousand dollars a year for the Commission's guidance work. On the other side, the measure bars any program from using funds earmarked for education, transportation or public safety, so those funding streams are shielded by the text.^S1^S2^S3^S7	Medium confidence

Tradeoffs

Choice now versus cost later: the measure creates no program and spends no money, so its fiscal effect is limited to a few hundred thousand dollars a year for state guidance work. If governments do adopt programs, the Legislative Analyst says their cost could be significant and depends on which governments act and how they design the programs. Supporters say a program could cost as little as $1 per resident each year; opponents call the measure a blank check. Both figures are campaign claims.^S2^S3^S5^S6
Limits in the text versus limits left open: the measure requires participating candidates to abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria that require broad-based support, and its text places a cap of ten dollars on the contribution that may be required to count toward a small-dollar threshold. It does not set a statewide dollar cap on program spending or a limit on how many candidates may participate; opponents point to those gaps, and the Legislative Analyst says many key design decisions are left to future state and local decision makers.^S2^S5^S6^S7
Public funds plus private money: the measure does not limit private contributions to candidates who receive public funds, and it does not prohibit special interest money in campaigns. Supporters say public financing reduces reliance on wealthy donors; opponents say candidates could collect both public funds and special interest money, which they argue defeats the purpose of the reform.^S5^S6
Which public money is off limits: the measure bars programs from using funds earmarked for education, transportation or public safety, which protects those funding streams, but it leaves governments free to fund programs from other sources, and the Legislative Analyst says the total cost would depend on program design. Opponents say money would come from taxpayers at the expense of schools, public safety and healthcare.^S1^S2^S4^S5^S7
Enforcement split: the Fair Political Practices Commission would give guidance and would not be required to administer or enforce local programs, so each local government would run its own program, and the text allows some parts of the amended section to be changed by a majority statute while others require a two-thirds vote. The Legislative Analyst expects the Commission to need more legal staff for the guidance work.^S2^S3^S7
Foreign money rules versus existing rules: the measure adds a misdemeanor and a maximum fine of three times the amount contributed or expended for foreign contributions and expenditures, and it excludes lawfully admitted permanent residents and DACA recipients from the definition of foreign national. The title and summary describes the change as tripling the maximum fine.^S1^S7
Timing: nothing changes on the day the measure takes effect unless a state or local government acts. The measure's only immediate effects are the repeal of the ban, the rules it sets for future programs and the higher foreign contribution penalties.^S2^S3^S7

Sources

Proposition 4 Official Title and Summary (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 4 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State and Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 4 [Ballot], Propositions on the November 3, 2026 Ballot Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 4 summary page (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 4 Arguments and Rebuttals (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 4 print version, Official Voter Information Guide (title and summary, LAO analysis, arguments and rebuttals, legislative vote count) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 4 Text of Proposed Laws, Official Voter Information Guide (California Fair Elections Act of 2026, SB 42, Chapter 245, Statutes of 2025) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
2026 Ballot Measure Contribution Totals: Proposition 4 – SB 42 (Umberg) Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing: California Fair Elections Act of 2026 (Ch. 245, 2025) California Secretary of State (Cal-Access) Accessed 2026-10-17
Top 10 Contributors List, November 2026 General Election (last modified October 14, 2026) California Fair Political Practices Commission Accessed 2026-10-17
CalMatters California Voter Guide 2026: Proposition 4, Allow public financing of political campaigns CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 4: Allow public financing of political campaigns (CalMatters explainer, published September 23, 2026) KPBS Public Media and CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17