Proposition 4: California Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure

The way campaign finance currently seems to work is: Only chumps obey the limits on campaign donations to candidates. If you’re rich enough, you can give a bazillion dollars to any PAC you’d like—and they can give it to the candidate. Or they can give it to a “cause” that broadcasts the candidate’s name. And thanks a lot, SCOTUS, as of this year there’s no longer a limit on how much a party can spend in coordination with a candidate. Yikes.

But here comes Prop 4 to save the day! It would overturn the 1988 proposition that banned state and local governments from establishing public financing for campaigns. Public financing is a way for communities to counter the power of big-money campaign contributions by setting public money aside for small-dollar candidates who agree to fundraising limits. San Francisco is a charter city, so we’ve had public financing since voters approved Prop O in 2000. Since then, it’s helped level the playing field in SF elections so that the candidate with the most money isn’t always guaranteed to win.

If Prop 4 passes, it would be legal to create public financing programs for statewide executive campaigns, City College and School Board campaigns, and even BART Board campaigns!

Public financing matters. Look at the case of kick-ass New York Attorney General Leticia James, who says she won her early races for City Council and Public Advocate because of public financing, since she didn’t come from family wealth or know mega-donors. Without public financing, the deck is stacked in favor of any super-rich guy/blue jeans heir who decides it would be fun to buy an election this time around. Prop 4 is supported by everyone from the League of Women Voters to the ACLU, the California Democratic Party, California Common Cause, and the Working Families Party. It’s one basic way to un-stack the deck, at least a little bit. (Also, state Republicans hate the idea of public financing, which only makes us love it more.)

A public financing proposition came to voters in 2010, after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision unleashed a tsunami of campaign spending. It lost then —but now it only needs 50% plus one, and we’ve had a while to understand how important it is. Let’s finally make it work! Hell Yes on Prop 4!

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/#Prop4)

SPUR's Recommendation

California campaigns are expensive and donor-dependent. Public financing brings in more small-dollar donors, lowers barriers for first-time and under-resourced candidates, and increases candidate diversity and voter engagement. These benefits align with SPUR’s view that equitable representation requires campaign finance reform. Financing programs would add costs and create administrative burden, but because governments would opt in to Prop. 4, they would retain flexibility over whether and how to implement it. SPUR supports clearing this state-level barrier and letting cities, counties, and the state decide for themselves.

What Prop. 4 Would Do

Proposition 4 would give state and local jurisdictions the option of creating a public financing program for candidates running for office. If state and local governments opt in, they would have to develop spending limits and criteria for candidates to qualify for public funds. Candidates would be barred from using public finance dollars for legal defense fees, fines, or to repay personal loans to a campaign. The source of funding, such as a city’s General Fund or a property tax, is left to local governments, but the funds cannot come from money earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.

The Backstory

California has one main law governing campaign finance. In 1974, Proposition 9 created the Political Reform Act. This act regulates campaign finance disclosure, contributions, expenditures, lobbying practices, and government conflicts of interest and ethics. It has been amended more than 200 times. In 1988, Proposition 73 banned public campaign funding on the grounds that too much money was being spent on political campaigns and that public funds should be directed to other priorities.

Since then, several ballot measures have attempted to reshape the state’s public financing landscape with varying success. Proposition 34, passed in 2000, imposed contribution, transfer, and voluntary spending limits for candidates listed in the ballot pamphlet that remain largely in effect today. In 2016, the Legislature passed a measure that would have lifted the state’s ban on public financing, but the courts ruled that it needed to go to the voters. The legislature addressed this issue in 2025, resulting in Prop. 4 on the 2026 ballot.

Wealthy donors and corporate-funded political ads often dominate elections in California, sidelining everyday voters and eroding public trust in government. Lobbying groups spent more than $500 million to influence the state government in 2024, the most ever. Prop. 4 does not set a limit on this activity but aims to help level the playing field by providing public funding to candidates who do not have access to support from wealthy individuals or corporations.

Campaigns have become increasingly expensive to run at all levels. At the state level, according to the organization Common Cause, it costs roughly $1 million to run and win a California Assembly seat and $1.7 million to run and win a State Senate seat. As a result, megadonors and outside interests routinely foot the bill and, in the process, discourage those without wealthy networks from running.

Current state law permits public campaign financing only in charter cities, not at the state level or in non-charter cities. Of California's 121 charter cities, 6 have public financing programs: Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Richmond, and San Francisco. Nationally, 20 other cities and counties and 14 states have public campaign financing. Public financing programs vary from grants and vouchers to matching programs. Los Angeles and San Francisco have a 6:1 matching fund — every $1 donated by a resident is matched by $6 from the city — with a cap depending on the office a candidate is running for. Seattle and Oakland offer Democracy Dollars, whereby every resident over 18 receives four $25 vouchers to donate to their preferred local candidate(s).

States with Public Campaign Financing Systems

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures (https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/public-financing-of-campaigns-overview)

State Public Campaign Financing Programs

• State: Arizona; Enacted: 1998; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature
• State: Connecticut; Enacted: 2005; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature
• State: Florida; Enacted: 1986; Program Type: Small donor multiple match; Offices: Statewide offices
• State: Hawaii; Enacted: 1979; Program Type: Small donor single match; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature, county offices
• State: Maine; Enacted: 1996; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Governor, legislature
• State: Maryland; Enacted: 1974; Program Type: Small donor progressive match; Offices: Governor
• State: Massachusetts; Enacted: 1975; Program Type: Small donor single match; Offices: Statewide offices
• State: Michigan; Enacted: 1976; Program Type: Small donor multiple match and partial grants; Offices: Governor
• State: Minnesota; Enacted: 1974; Program Type: Partial grants and refunds; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature
• State: New Jersey; Enacted: 1974; Program Type: Multiple match; Offices: Governor
• State: New Mexico; Enacted: 2003; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Statewide judicial offices, district judges
• State: New York; Enacted: 2020; Program Type: Small donor progressive match; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature
• State: Rhode Island; Enacted: 1988; Program Type: Progressive match; Offices: Statewide offices
• State: Vermont; Enacted: 1997; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Governor, lieutenant governor

Source: Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-public-financing-programs-nationwide)

Evidence suggests public campaign financing can lead to more small-dollar donors, greater donor diversity, and a broader range of people running for office. A 2022 University of Washington study found that in the two election cycles since Seattle implemented its program, the number of donors per race increased by 350%. Donations of less than $200 increased by 270%, and the number of candidates rose by 86%. A separate analysis also found that some residents were almost 12 times more likely to vote if they participated in the program, and low-income Seattleites and people of color were more likely to use their vouchers than they were to give a cash donation.

The Government Accountability Office's review of five programs (Arizona, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Seattle) found that publicly financed candidates performed better than candidates who did not opt in. A participating candidate won or advanced in at least 50% of all contests in four of the five locations — reaching 85% to 95% in some Minnesota and Los Angeles elections. In matching-fund and voucher programs, candidates consistently received far more, but smaller, contributions; for example, in Los Angeles's 2022 mayoral race, publicly financed candidates averaged around 6,600 contributions of about $530 each, while non-participants averaged approximately 560 contributions of almost $25,000 each.

Prop. 4 was placed on the ballot legislatively through Senate Bill 42 (2025) and requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.

Equity Impacts

Wealthy, often demographically narrow donor networks currently dominate California campaign funding, and this falls hardest along lines of race, income, and geography. Oakland’s 2023 campaign finance measure (Measure W) was proposed to address this disparity. Research found that campaign contributions gave disproportionate power to donors outside Oakland and in the city's wealthier, whiter neighborhoods. That disproportionate power muted the political voice of lower-income residents and communities of color in their own local elections.

Public financing can counter such impacts. In Seattle, low-income residents and people of color were more likely to use Democracy Dollars than to make a cash donation, meaning the model activates participation among populations least engaged by traditional, wealth-dependent giving. Voucher users were also substantially more likely to vote. By lowering the fundraising bar, public financing also opens pathways for candidates without wealthy networks (often candidates of color, women, and working-class candidates) to run competitively, diversifying who’s on the ballot, not just who funds them. Prop 4 could encourage more candidates to run for office and help the candidate pools better reflect local racial, gender, and socioeconomic diversity.

Because Prop. 4 is optional for cities, these equity gains depend on which jurisdictions adopt and properly fund programs (as the research on Oakland’s still-unfunded Measure W shows). But removing the state-level barrier allows every California city and county to build systems that broaden who can run and whose voices matter locally.

Pros

• Prop. 4 could encourage more candidates to run for office who reflect California’s racial, gender, and socioeconomic diversity by lowering the barrier to entry for candidates without wealthy networks, name recognition, or fundraising experience.
• The measure would foster more small donors and reduce reliance on big money.
• Public campaign financing can increase voter engagement and turnout when using vouchers.
• The measure would allow local flexibility and would be optional, rather than a mandate, reducing the risk of a one-size-fits-all system.

Cons

• Evidence on whether public campaign financing can reduce big-money influence in elections is mixed. Prop. 4 would not limit campaign financing through independent expenditures and political action committees, which have had outsized influence on elections since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.
• Prop. 4 would present a cost to taxpayers.Public financing requires ongoing public money through General Fund appropriations, dedicated taxes, or fees.
• The measure would entail administrative burden and complexity. Campaign financing programs require qualification review, spending-limit enforcement, audits, fraud detection, and other processes.

Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-4-campaign-financing)

Prop 4: No (Public funding of campaigns)

Since San Francisco was not banned from running a public financing program, we were able to analyze its impact on our elections. From 2012 to 2019, donations to Supervisor candidates were matched 2-to-1 on every dollar, but after 2019 the city changed to a 6-to-1 match on just the first $150.

We analyzed every itemized contribution to SF candidates since 2012 (https://data.sfgov.org/resource/pitq-e56w.json) and found that after the city raised its match to 6-to-1 in 2019, the median donation went down while city funding was largely unchanged. So someone who could have given $450 in 2019 would just give $150 now. So it saved donors money while taxpayers picked up the bill.

Maybe this would be worth it if it resulted in more diversity in elections, or in long-shot candidates making it, but elections did not change. The Ethics Commission's data shows incumbents winning at the same rate and fewer candidates running (https://sfethics.org/ethics/2025/03/san-francisco-public-campaign-financing-program-report-for-the-november-5-2024-election.html), while 2024 set a spending record and taxpayers picked up $8.8M of it.

Public financing in San Francisco has meant donors give less, taxpayers pay more, and elections come out the same. Vote no on Prop 4.

Source (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election#prop-4)

No on Prop 4: Gives Your Tax Dollars to Politicians’ Campaigns

DECEPTION ALERT: False cost estimate of only a “few hundred thousand dollars each year” when it will cost MILLIONS a year.

Repeals a previously approved ban on public financing of politicians’ campaigns. Voters wisely decided years ago that their tax dollars should never be used to fund the campaigns of politicians, but with Prop 4 the politicians are refusing to take no for an answer. They already tried to sneak this through the legislature in 2016. The courts threw it out and ruled that voters must decide. Ten years later they’re back, hat in hand, asking to spend your tax dollars on their attack ads. Tell them the same thing the courts did: NO.

Source (https://www.reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/san-diego)

NO on Prop. 4

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA), prohibits the use of tax money to finance political campaigns for elective office. Proposition 4 would remove that ban. HJTA has previously won court cases upholding this provision of the PRA, and we haven’t changed our position. Taxpayers should not have to pay the campaign expenses of candidates running for office or incumbents running for re-election.

Vote NO on 4.

Source (https://www.hjta.org/2026votingguide#Ballot-Measure-Recommendations)

Prop 4 - Use Your Money to Fund Political Campaigns

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 4

This is one of those “do they really think they can fool us" measures. And, yes, they really do. In no way should taxpayers fund political campaigns that don’t align with their values. We’re required to in SF, and it hasn't gone well.

This measure makes California less affordable.

Vote NO on Proposition 4

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/2026-voter-guide#prop-4)

**DECEPTION ALERT: False cost estimate of only a “few hundred thousand dollars each year” when it will cost MILLIONS a year. Repeals a previously approved ban on public financing of politicians’ campaigns. Voters wisely decided years ago that their tax dollars should never be used to fund the campaigns of politicians, but with Prop 4 the politicians are refusing to take no for an answer. They already tried to sneak this through the legislature in 2016. The courts threw it out and ruled that voters must decide. Ten years later they’re back, hat in hand, asking to spend your tax dollars on their attack ads. Tell them the same thing the courts did: NO.

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 4

This is one of those “do they really think they can fool us" measures. And, yes, they really do. In no way should taxpayers fund political campaigns that don’t align with their values. We’re required to in SF, and it hasn't gone well.

This measure makes California less affordable.

Vote NO on Proposition 4

PROP 4 Repeals a previous BAN on Public Financing of Political Campaigns. Voters wisely decided years ago that tax dollars should NEVER be used to fund the campaigns of politicians.

But with Prop 4, politicians are refusing to take “NO” for an answer. They tried to sneak this through the legislature in 2016. The courts threw it out, and ruled that voters must decide. 10 years later they’re back, asking to spend YOUR TAX DOLLARS (AGAIN!) on political campaigns. Tell them (AGAIN!) the same thing the courts did: “NO!”

**DECEPTION ALERT: False cost estimate of only a “few hundred thousand dollars each year” when it will cost MILLIONS a year.

Repeals a previously approved ban on public financing of politicians’ campaigns. Voters wisely decided years ago that their tax dollars should never be used to fund the campaigns of politicians, but with Prop 4 the politicians are refusing to take no for an answer. They already tried to sneak this through the legislature in 2016. The courts threw it out and ruled that voters must decide. Ten years later they’re back, hat in hand, asking to spend your tax dollars on their attack ads. Tell them the same thing the courts did: NO.

**DECEPTION ALERT: False cost estimate of only a “few hundred thousand dollars each year” when it will cost MILLIONS a year.

Repeals a previously approved ban on public financing of politicians’ campaigns. Voters wisely decided years ago that their tax dollars should never be used to fund the campaigns of politicians, but with Prop 4 the politicians are refusing to take no for an answer. They already tried to sneak this through the legislature in 2016. The courts threw it out and ruled that voters must decide. Ten years later they’re back, hat in hand, asking to spend your tax dollars on their attack ads. Tell them the same thing the courts did: NO.

**DECEPTION ALERT: False cost estimate of only a “few hundred thousand dollars each year” when it will cost MILLIONS a year. Repeals a previously approved ban on public financing of politicians’ campaigns. Voters wisely decided years ago that their tax dollars should never be used to fund the campaigns of politicians, but with Prop 4 the politicians are refusing to take no for an answer. They already tried to sneak this through the legislature in 2016. The courts threw it out and ruled that voters must decide. Ten years later they’re back, hat in hand, asking to spend your tax dollars on their attack ads. Tell them the same thing the courts did: NO.