Public money in elections? Prop 4 could allow it

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Hello and welcome back to Capitol Confidential! 

The newsletter may look a bit different today, as it’s our first edition since full access to Capitol Confidential California changed to require a paid subscription.

The free newsletter isn’t going away. It will continue as an abbreviated briefing to help you decide which state politics and policy stories need your attention. 

If you’d like more, we’re offering 25% off your first monthly or annual subscription through Nov. 30. Click here to upgrade now and save. 

Now, with the election less than two weeks away, here’s what to know about some of the lesser-known ballot measures. 

No matter where a person lands on the political spectrum, most can agree: There’s a whole lot of money involved in elections. Each year, campaign coffers in California rack up thousands of dollars – and, increasingly, sail past the million-dollar mark. 

This November, voters have the chance to weigh in on a decades-old law that has placed a firewall between public and private funding mechanisms of election campaigns. 

Prop 4, a legislative measure authored by Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, would repeal a 1988 ban on candidates using public money to help fund their campaigns. It would give the state and most municipal governments the ability to create public funding programs to offset some costs of elections. 

Candidates and campaigns would have to meet eligibility rules and adhere to spending limits to receive any funds, and would be prohibited from using taxpayer money for legal defense fees, fines or personal campaign loans.

If it sounds familiar, that may be because you live in one of a handful of charter cities in the state that are exempt from the ban and have created their own version of a public financing program for select races. 

Oakland has a program called “Democracy Dollars,” which gives eligible voters $100 in vouchers to commit to their candidate or race of choice (the program, created in 2022, is not funded for 2026 elections). San Francisco, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Long Beach provide matching funds to eligible candidates who receive a certain level of small-dollar donations.

It could also ring a bell for those who recall a similar attempt to lift the ban about a decade ago. 

In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB1107, penned by Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, to allow public money to be used for campaigns that met strict criteria. But it was struck down by courts, which ruled the amendment to the state’s Political Reform Act must go before voters. 

Supporters of the measure, including the California Clean Money Action Fund, argue there’s too much special interest money pouring into elections, and present taxpayer money as a way to limit outside influence and lower the bar of entry for candidates who don’t have deep pockets. 

“Political spending in California is out of control and is corrupting our democracy,” said Trent Lange, executive director of the California Clean Money Action Fund and co-chair of the Yes on Prop 4 campaign. “Prop 4 gives communities the right to empower everyday voters so candidates aren't beholden to the billionaires and corporate special interests who want to buy our elections.”

The measure also counts the California Democratic Party, California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters as supporters. Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he plans to vote yes on the ballot measure. 

Those opposed include the California Taxpayers Association, the California Republican Party and Reform California, the group headed by Assembly Member Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego. They argue that it’s a potentially wasteful use of taxpayer money, and could result in taxpayer funds supporting campaigns they oppose. 

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than a dozen states have programs offering some form of public financing for campaigns. Legislative analyses of the ballot measure’s original bill, SB42, point to programs in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine that are most similar to the one proposed in Prop 4. 

Last week, a trio of current and former parks officials came out in opposition to Prop 38. 

This week, a small group of researchers from UCLA and UC Davis sounded the alarm.