By admin 
Proposition 4 would repeal California’s ban on public financing of political campaigns, allowing state and local governments to disburse public funds to candidates.
Read more How one man kept the water flowing in the Yolo County community of Madison | Opinion
If approved, the measure would allow state and local governments to create programs for the use of certain public funds to finance political campaigns. Candidates would be prohibited from using the funds to repay personal loans to their campaigns, legal defense fees or fines. Those who receive public funds would be required to show broad-based local support and pledge their compliance with spending limits and other rules.
The proposition would limit which public funds could be allocated to campaigns. Money set aside for education, transportation or public safety, for example, could not be distributed to political candidates under the proposition’s provisions.
The Fair Political Practices Commission and the California Secretary of State’s Office would continue to enforce the state’s campaign-financing laws. Prop. 4 does not apply to federal campaigns for Congress or the offices of president and vice president.
Prop. 4 would revise Prop. 73, a 1988 ballot measure that imposed California’s ban on public financing and set contribution limits, and amend the Political Reform Act of 1974. The current law allows charter cities, but not state, counties, districts and general law cities, to distribute public funds to campaigns.
Of roughly 482 municipalities in California, approximately 112 are charter cities, according to data from the state’s Department of Finance and the League of California Cities. Of these, five — Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco — have adopted a method of public campaign financing. The latest of the group to adopt such a system was Berkeley in 2016.
Prop. 4 puts the provisions of Senate Bill 42, termed the California Fair Elections Act of 2026, to a statewide vote. The measure passed the Legislature and was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October but must attain a simple majority in a statewide vote to go into effect.
What a ‘yes’ vote means
A “yes” vote on Prop. 4 would allow the state and local governments to create programs that provide candidates with public funds. The proposition would not mandate the development of these programs, and governments that elect to create them would be responsible for absorbing their cost.
» Election news in your inbox: Sign up for our election newsletter here
If implemented, the proposition would not impose significant costs to the state. Because much of the measure’s fiscal impact would fall on individual governments that choose to implement public funding programs, the estimated ongoing cost to the state would be a few hundred thousand dollars per year for staffing to answer legal questions about creating such programs, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Read more Motorcyclist dies after hit-and-run crash on Watt Avenue in Arden Arcade
What a ‘no’ vote means
A ‘no’ vote on Prop. 4 would maintain California’s ban on public funding for political candidates at the state, county, district, and city level. The exception for charter cities would remain in place.
Supporters of Prop. 4
Supporters of Prop. 4 argue that the measure would reduce candidates’ reliance on wealthy special interest donors and other sources of “big money.” In this way, access to public funds would expand opportunities to run for office, according to Trent Lange, the executive director of the California Clean Money Action Fund.
“We need to change the way we finance election campaigns so elected officials focus on working for the people instead of big money donors,” Lange said. “A proven way to do that is with public financing of campaigns to provide qualified candidates with the resources they need to compete against big money campaign spending.”
According to California Common Cause Executive Director Darius Kemp, implementing Prop. 4 would provide an important source of accountability for candidates who might not otherwise have put taxpayers’ interests first.
“Currently, we live in a system where billionaires and corporations enrich people by paying for campaigns, for the most part,” Kemp said. “Personally, I think it’s more valuable to have elected officials beholden to and concerned about regular citizens that have supported their campaigns…through a publicly financed election system that is monitored…to make sure that there are no illegal or improper uses of the money.”
Supporters include:
- The California Clean Money Action Fund
- California Common Cause
- The California Democratic Party
- The League of Women Voters of California
- ACLU of California
Opponents of Prop. 4
Opponents of the measure argue that allocating public funds to political campaigns is a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. The California Taxpayers’ Association has led the movement to oppose Prop. 4, arguing that the money is better spent elsewhere.
“Prop 4… presents a very straightforward, simple issue,” said David Kline, a spokesman for the California Taxpayers Association. “Should tax dollars be used for things that actually help taxpayers, like libraries and improving roads and paying for schools? Or should you use tax dollars for political campaigns and hit pieces and mailers that are going to clog your mailbox around election time?”
Read more Parts of NC 12 closed on Outer Banks as 18-foot waves recorded, officials say
Reform California has also opposed Prop. 4.