Proposition 38: Establish Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Institute Initiative

Yes on Prop 38: Public-Private Partnership Bonds for Immunology Research

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

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

Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research – YES. Proposition 38 authorizes $8.4 billion in bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. At least half must focus on cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease, conditions that exact a heavy toll in Black communities and other communities of color. Treatments developed through the program and sold in California generally must be offered at a 20% discount, and 10% of revenue from discoveries must first help repay the state. The bond would cost an estimated $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years, and future research revenue is uncertain. We support the investment because scientific progress should address communities that have too often been underrepresented in research and underserved in care. Implementation must include diverse clinical-trial participation, public reporting by race and ethnicity, partnerships with safety-net providers and community organizations, and meaningful access to the treatments taxpayers help create.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

Recommends to vote "Yes"

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

Vote Yes Prop 38:

Advances Life-Saving Medical Research

Funds research into treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s, and other serious diseases.

Source (https://www.udw.org/vote#ballot)

Prop 38 was filed by billionaire Gary Michelson, and every dollar on the FPPC's list of top donors (https://www.fppc.ca.gov/search-filings/top-10-contributors-list/november-2026-general-election/) to the Yes campaign comes from him or from Meyer Luskin, both co-founders of the institute it would fund. The eligibility criteria (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-38/legal-text/#prop-38-institute-criteria) for the $4.2B institute half describe the nonprofit institute at UCLA that Michelson co-founded and chairs (https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/michelsons-give-120-million-gift-to-ucla-immunology-immunotherapy), down to the two programs his gift created: a nonprofit existing by January 1, 2025, at least 200,000 square feet, $250M in pledges, and $50M each for vaccine and microbiome programs. A UCLA spokesperson confirmed (https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2026/07/proposition-38-california/) that no other institution qualifies.

If Washington cuts research funding, the Legislature can fund scientific research in any year's budget and award it competitively. It does not take a bond. And California already ran this experiment with $8.5B for stem cell research (https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/history/) in 2004 and 2020: the only FDA-approved treatment that arose arrived after 21 years (https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-gene-therapy-severe-leukocyte-adhesion-deficiency-type-i), for an ultra-rare disease, while 92% of awards through 2012 went to institutions tied to the agency's board (https://capitolweekly.net/those-linked-to-stem-cell-board-received-more-than-2-1-billion/).

Immunotherapy is not a field short of money. One immunotherapy drug, Keytruda, sold $31.7B in 2025 (https://www.msd.com/news/merck-co-inc-rahway-n-j-usa-announces-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2025-financial-results-highlights-progress-advancing-broad-diverse-pipeline/), and private investors chase every promising lead in this field. Public money is not needed where private money is abundant.

Prop 38 would cost $500M to $600M per year for about 20 years (https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/38/analysis.htm) from a General Fund that the Legislative Analyst says is running a structural imbalance this year (https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5197), with deficits projected every year after. Research is a good cause and it's great that the state and federal government fund it, and that is exactly why it deserves better than a bond one donor wrote around his own institute. Vote no.

Source (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election#prop-38)

Prop 38 is put on the ballot by Gary Michelson (https://www.michelsonphilanthropies.org/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21177347511&gbraid=0AAAAA9kwSar3ECcYp3rHBj9DNxVJlc5dA&gclid=Cj0KCQjwt9jVBhDXARIsAFSP-6cv7ayWx1jA2be3GK1RFJrK7UPFGP2Hrs8VwJlezQh2h1mJb_HU7EMaAiiZEALw_wcB), a benevolent rich dude. He’s used his money to sponsor decent legislation in the past, regulating animal testing, banning fur, and helping parents with continuing adult education. Prop 38 would give $4.2 billion to Michelson’s immunology institute at UCLA, while the other $4.2 billion would be given out as competitive research grants to universities and non-profits over the next 20 years. 

Michelson argues that the $8.4 billion cost would pay for itself through Prop 38’s requirements that some portion of the financial benefits from the research would go back to the state. But who knows what those will be? It could take decades for any money to trickle-down to real needs in California. Immunology is an important research priority, but we’re against rich people pushing through ballot initiatives that use our bond dollars to support their own science projects. Vote no.

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/#Prop38)

NO on Prop. 38

Another bond measure, Proposition 38 authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for research and therapies related to using the body’s immune system to treat disease. There is no reason that this cost should be borne by California taxpayers. Viable research can be funded by pharmaceutical companies, foundations and the federal government. An analysis by CalMatters reveals that the ballot language criteria were tailored in a way that very likely excludes all but one institute in the entire state: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, whose prominent donor and co-founder is the chief backer of the proposition. Prop. 38 appears to be a clear case of self-dealing at the expense of taxpayers.

Vote NO on 38.

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

Authorizes the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research.
“We call for... efforts to increase the participation of low-income people in political and civic life, and citizen vigilance and action that challenges governments and other sectors when they become captive to narrow economic interests that do not represent the good of all.” Sufficient, Sustainable Livelihood for All, p. 4.

Authorizes $8.4 billion in General Obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, including research involving cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease. CADC recognizes the importance of medical research but opposes Prop. 38 because the state would incur approximately $500 million annually in debt service for about 25 years while the financial and medical returns remain uncertain. Committee members also questioned the fragmented approach of dedicating a large state bond to selected areas of medical research rather than addressing medical research more broadly.

CADC 認同醫學研究的重要性，但認為以巨額州債集中資助特定研究領域、由納稅人長期負擔債務而成果仍具不確定性，因此反對提案 38。

Source (https://www.sfcadc.org/11_2026_propositions)

Prop 38 - Bonds for Medical Research

Endorsement: Vote NO on Proposition 38

Half of this money would go to a non-profit medical research institute. Do we need to say more? We appreciate and respect scientific research, but let’s not continue to feed NGOs that have shown a proven lack of results without staunching the bleeding first.

Vote NO on Proposition 38

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/2026-voter-guide#prop-38)

$8.4 billion bond for immunology research

Source (https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/123-november-2026-endorsements)

Endorsement: Vote NO on Proposition 38

Half of this money would go to a non-profit medical research institute. Do we need to say more? We appreciate and respect scientific research, but let’s not continue to feed NGOs that have shown a proven lack of results without staunching the bleeding first.

Vote NO on Proposition 38

VOTE NO ON PROP 38 Proposition 38 will authorize an $8.4 billion general obligation bond for research in immunology and immunotherapy, with $4.2 billion to be directed to the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy (CIII). CIII is a research institute co-founded by the billionaire backers of this proposition, Dr. Gary Michelson and Meyer Luskin. Michelson is the chairman of the CIII board of directors, and Luskin is the treasurer. CIII received $200 million in start-up funding from the state, and is currently being built on the University of California, Los Angeles campus. The remaining $4.2 billion would be distributed across non-profit universities and medical research institutes through a competitive grant process that CIII would participate in, and grantees would be required to collaborate with CIII on clinical trials funded by the bond. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates that repayment of this bond fund will increase state costs by $500 million to $600 million annually for the next 20 years. Any resulting technology or medical therapies developed from the research funded through Proposition 38 would be sold at 20% lower than the national average, providing some benefit back to taxpayers.

BONDS FOR IMMUNOLOGY MEDICAL RESEARCH

Medical research can save lives, but Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund it. It would authorize $8.4 billion in borrowing for immunology and immunotherapy research and require the state to make $500 million to $600 million in annual debt payments for about 20 years. Those payments would come from the General Fund, which also pays for schools, health care, and other public services.

• Borrowing is a poor way to pay for ongoing scientific research. Bonds are best suited to long-lived investments such as buildings and infrastructure. With interest, the Legislative Analyst estimates Prop 38 would cost about 10 percent more, after adjusting for inflation, than paying for the research up front.
• Prop 38 would lock billions of dollars into one field of research for years to come. About half of the money would go to a single UC-affiliated research institute and the other half to a grant program, with at least $4.2 billion reserved for cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s research. Scientific opportunities and public health needs change. State funding should be able to respond to those changes rather than locking billions of dollars into one field of research through a ballot measure.
• Research royalties are no reason to take on $8.4 billion in debt. When voters approved $3 billion for stem-cell research in 2004, supporters pointed to royalties and millions in new state revenue. By 2022, CIRM reported only $15.6 million in its licensing and royalties fund from royalty payments. Prop 38 again points to research-generated revenue as a way to offset public costs, but the Legislative Analyst says the amount and timing are unknown.

California can support important medical research without committing taxpayers to decades of debt and restricting future choices about where limited public dollars can do the most good.

Source (https://lwvc.org/ballot-recommendations)

Immunology and immunotherapy research are good things.

Does that mean Californians ought to approve $8.4 billion in bonds to approve a plan developed outside the legislative process? That’s what backers of Proposition 38 on the November ballot believe needs to be done to, as they told the editorial board in an interview, “accelerate research to save lives.”

But as always, it’s important to check the fine print.

Half of the funds would be doled out as competitive research grants. But then there’s the other half, which the measure details must go to “a single nonprofit medical research institute” that meets very particular requirements.

Among other requirements, the institute must have “an affiliation agreement, entered into not later than January 1, 2025, that creates an affiliation relationship with a campus of the University of California,” be on a campus that “has a public healthcare system that consists of one or more hospitals and that conducts its own clinical trials,” and be “not less than 200,000 square feet in size.” In addition, the healthcare system affiliated with the campus must also have “a hospital and clinic volume of greater than 35,000 inpatient admissions and 3,500,000 outpatient visits each year.”

This level of precision excludes “all but one institute in the entire state: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, whose prominent donor and co-founder is the chief backer of the proposition,” according to a CalMatters investigation. The billionaire co-founder of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy is Gary K. Michelson, who is also the chief backer of the Proposition 38 campaign.

While we have issues with most kinds of ballot-box budgeting, the measure should have been more honest and direct with voters. That’s why a proposed ballot measure to fund research that had gone through the public hearing process via the Legislature or a bond measure issuing solely competitive grants would be preferable to this sort of measure, which was drafted by interested parties who can’t or won’t just say what they’re doing.

Backers also argue Prop. 38 will in the end pay for itself because companies that make drugs made possible by this research would have to give back 10% of their earnings to help pay back the bond. “The bonds will be repaid with interest, relatively quickly,” backers told us. If that were so, we don’t see what’s stopping the billionaires backing this initiative from privately funding immunology research. If it’s truly a money-making enterprise, private investors will certainly be interested.

The editorial board also spoke with Dr. Robert Kaplan, a retired professor of health policy at UCLA, and David Panush, president of California Health Policy Strategies. Both are avid backers of medical research investment in our state. But they are co-chairing the No on Prop. 38 campaign because they say a huge bond is the wrong way to fund research. They decry Washington’s failure to back science, but say “federal cuts are no excuse to put billions in medical research spending on California’s credit card. We should fight to restore federal funding — not force California taxpayers to cover Washington’s retreat.”
Kaplan, who was an executive at the National Institutes of Health, notes that the promise to pay the state back from medical profits is an empty one, which would at best happen decades hence. Panush notes that similar promises from 2004’s stem cell research bond measure amounted to less than 1% of its cost (https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2019/190611.pdf), which voters should keep in mind whenever they hear proponents of Prop. 38 declare this time will be different.

Finally, it’s important to remember this measure isn’t free. The Legislative Analyst’s Office reports that repaying the bond will require $500 million to $600 million in spending out of the state general fund for 20 years. That’s money that could be used to tackle homelessness, public safety, or take pressure off of taxpayers the next time Sacramento looks for a tax hike. Or, if proponents of Prop. 38 really had a strong case, that amount could also go toward direct funding, without costly interest payments, of immunology research.

No matter how one looks at it, Prop. 38 makes little sense unless your research institution expects to get a windfall of public funds. Vote No on Prop. 38.

Source (https://www.dailynews.com/2026/08/23/endorsement-no-on-proposition-38-an-8-4-billion-money-grab/)

REASONS TO VOTE “NO”

1. BOND: It’s a $8.4 Billion 20yr BOND ! NO to ALL BONDS. CA cannot afford to BORROW. Cannot afford MORE debt service.

2. UNFAIR: Billionaire (Gary Michelson) is pushing PROP 38, which unfairly steers $4.2 billion to the institution HE CREATED for Immunology research.

3. Medicine/Science changes FREQUENTLY! “IMMUNOLOGY” may be “outdated” long before debt is paid in 20yrs.

4. PROPONENTS say it will “PAY FOR ITSELF” w/new immunology/meds royalties. That is speculative & risky! No guarantees! CA’s owns this DEBT!

$8.4 BILLION Research BOND

Half of the $8.4 billion invested aimed at one single NGO

Source (https://svgop.com/s/SVGOP-2026-Gen-Election-Endorsements.pdf)

Prop 38 borrows $8.4 billion for immunology/immunotherapy research—and directs half the proceeds to one qualifying UC-affiliated research institute, run by a billionaire, with the rest distributed through grants. This proposition is pretty naked self-dealing by wealthy individuals. By phrasing it as promoting medical research, something no one opposes, Michelson hopes to smuggle in a popular mandate to deliver state funds to his own institution. Voters should not constitutionally commit billions in public debt through an initiative constructed around a particular private institution. We recommend a No vote.