This November, California voters will decide whether to adopt Proposition 4, a ballot measure that would allow the state to enact public campaign financing programs. Approving the measure would be a powerful way to counter the corrupting influence of big money in state politics. It would allow candidates to run competitive campaigns without depending on large donors and help more Californians engage meaningfully with the political process.
California elections are awash in money. In the 2026 primary elections, outside groups representing some of the state’s wealthiest individuals and most powerful business interests spent $9 million to influence just one assembly district seat. Several billionaires and billionaire-fueled PACs poured millions into other state legislative races that in the past would have been community-focused contests. These developments mirror a larger national trend in which a handful of ultra-wealthy donors increasingly dominate election spending. And this year’s midterms are on track to break spending records, with the top 50 donors already having poured nearly $1.8 billion into the election. That figure doesn’t include an additional reported $276 million spent by Elon Musk.
Thanks to Citizens United and other court decisions, states and localities cannot limit how much billionaires and wealthy industries like AI, crypto, and hedge funds spend on California elections. But they can provide alternative ways for candidates to reach voters.
One of the most powerful is to provide voluntary public financing for candidates who have demonstrated viability. Public financing programs currently exist in at least 14 states and 26 localities, including five California charter cities, but state law currently bans other localities and the state from creating similar programs. Prop 4 would repeal that ban, giving the legislature and local governments the opportunity to create new public financing programs.
They would have a number of models to choose from. One of the most effective and best-studied systems is small donor matching, which matches small donations from individuals in the community with public funds. Los Angeles, Berkeley, Long Beach, and San Francisco use this model, as do New York State and New York City. Other programs, including statewide systems in Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine, offer qualifying candidates block grants. Another model provides eligible voters with vouchers that they can use to assign public funds to participating candidates, as Oakland will soon do. Prop 4 does not require the state or any locality to adopt any of these systems, or to enact public financing at all. It simply gives them the option.
Some who oppose Prop 4 argue that California’s existing public financing programs need further study before expanding the reform in the state. But Prop 4 does not create any new programs — it simply gives the state and localities more options. Jurisdictions across the state that want to implement public financing would still be able to weigh the pros and cons while looking to especially strong models, like New York State, as they develop their own programs.
The benefits of public financing in New York and elsewhere are in fact well-documented. Data from New York State’s first cycle of public financing in 2024 shows a remarkable shift in campaign funding. Publicly financed candidates relied significantly more on small, in-district contributions than in past elections. Roughly twice as many New Yorkers made small-dollar donations compared to the 2020 or 2022 cycles. The increase in small donations was driven by local constituents, which is striking in a state where out-of-district and out-of-state donors have historically dominated election giving.
Other jurisdictions have had similar successes. In DC’s first citywide elections with public financing in 2020, publicly financed candidates tended to outraise and enjoy greater electoral success than their privately financed counterparts. In Seattle, the number of residents donating to city campaigns more than doubled in just the first few years that public financing was available. And after Berkeley, California’s public financing program went into effect in 2018, contributions from non-Berkeley residents dropped to 10 percent of total fundraising that year, down from 33 percent in 2016.
