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.

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 $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)

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.

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)