Skip to main content

BallotQuestions.vote is an independent, nonpartisan tracker. It is not a government website and not an election authority. For official ballot information, contact your state election authority.

Proposition 4

Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns

On the ballot

California · November 2026 general election · Legislative referral · Election day November 3, 2026
Topics: Elections and voting, Government structure

In plain language

Proposition 4 would repeal the Political Reform Act's ban on using public money for political candidates' campaigns. State and local governments could then set up public campaign financing programs for candidates who agree to spending limits and meet eligibility criteria. The measure would bar those programs from drawing on funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, and would bar candidates from using public funds for legal defense costs, fines, or repaying personal loans to their campaigns. It would also triple the maximum fine for campaign contributions by foreign entities. The Legislature placed it on the ballot through Senate Bill 42.

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government 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."

Summarized from the official fiscal analysis listed in the sources below. Figures are the state's, not this site's.

What supporters and opponents say

These are summaries of arguments made by the named organizations, drawn from the sources listed below. They are their claims, not this site's, and this site takes no position on the measure.

What supporters say

  • The ballot argument signed by Lorrel Plimier (League of Women Voters of California), Catherine Kennedy (California Nurses Association), and State Senator Tom Umberg says the measure would let candidates who do not rely on wealthy donors compete, citing similar systems in fourteen states and 26 localities.
  • Supporters state in the official argument that Proposition 4 does not itself create a public financing program but gives local governments the option to adopt one, at a cost they estimate at as little as $1 per resident per year.
  • The argument lists taxpayer safeguards: strict eligibility criteria and spending limits, a bar on programs favoring incumbents or discriminating by party, and restrictions on how public funds may be used.

Attributed to League of Women Voters of California, California Nurses Association.

What opponents say

  • The ballot argument signed by Dan Schnur and Colleen McAndrews, both former members of the Fair Political Practices Commission, and Julian Canete (California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) says the measure sets no actual eligibility criteria and leaves them to be written later by the same politicians who would receive the funds.
  • Opponents state in the official argument that candidates could take public funding and still raise money from special interests, so the measure would not remove special interest money from politics.
  • The argument names the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California, and United Latinos Action among organizations opposing the measure.

Attributed to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Family Business Association of California.

Sources

Everything on this page traces to these sources. Follow them to read the original documents.

Last updated . How this page is sourced and corrected is described in the correction policy.