California ballot measure · November 3, 2026

California Proposition 4, explained

Public financing of election campaigns. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.

The official wording

REPEALS PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. 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.

This is what appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.

What it actually means

California's Political Reform Act bans using public money for candidates' campaigns, except in some charter cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. This measure lifts the ban so the state, counties and other cities could create public financing programs if they choose. It does not create any program itself.

If you vote YES

The state and any local government could create a public campaign financing program in the future, such as matching small donations.
Any such program would have to require candidates to show broad support and accept spending limits, could not use money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety, and could not pay for legal defense, fines or repayment of a candidate's personal loans.
The maximum fine for illegal foreign campaign contributions would triple.
The Fair Political Practices Commission would likely hire legal staff to advise governments, costing a few hundred thousand dollars a year.

If you vote NO

The ban on public funding of campaigns would stay in place for state offices and for most local offices.
Only charter cities that already can, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland and Berkeley, could continue to offer public funds to city candidates.
Existing fines for foreign contributions would stay as they are.

The numbers that matter

Direct state cost: A few hundred thousand dollars a year
Cost of future programs: Unknown; could be significant for governments that create them

Why supporters say YES

More than $1 billion has been spent on state candidate races since 2020; letting communities adopt small-donor matching would help qualified candidates compete without personal wealth or wealthy donors.
— Official argument in favor, signed by the League of Women Voters of California, the California Nurses Association and Senator Tom Umberg
California is the only state that bans public campaign financing; the measure spends no taxpayer money itself and leaves each community free to decide, within required safeguards.
— Official rebuttal, signed by Consumer Watchdog, California National Organization for Women and California Common Cause

Why opponents say NO

The measure sets no limit on how many candidates could receive taxpayer money or how much, and leaves the eligibility criteria to be written by the same politicians who would benefit.
— Official argument against, signed by former Fair Political Practices Commission Chair Dan Schnur, former Commissioner Colleen McAndrews and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Candidates could take public funds and special-interest contributions at the same time, and the money would come from budgets that otherwise pay for schools, public safety and health care.
— Official rebuttal to the argument in favor, signed by the California Taxpayers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Dan Schnur

What’s genuinely uncertain

The cost to any government that creates a program is unknown; it depends entirely on which governments act and how they design their programs.
Whether the state itself would create a program for legislative or statewide offices is not decided by this measure.

The bottom line

Letting governments try public financing to reduce reliance on large donors, against opening a use of public money whose size and rules are left to future decisions.

One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.

Sources:vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov ballotpedia.org

Checking it against the official text

The California Secretary of State publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.

Confirm this with the official source

Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at California Secretary of State.

Other measures on the California ballot

Candidates on the same ballot

Everything on the California ballot →