YES on Proposition 4 – Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns

UNDER CONSTRUCTION – DO NOT SHARE!

Give Power to the People – Not Special Interests!

What’s the Background? Since 1988, California law has prohibited the state, counties, districts, and most cities from using public money to fund election campaigns.

Sounds like a good idea. . . right? But is it really? These campaign funding prohibitions opened the door for fat cats with “big money” to have an outsized influence in our elections while marginalizing ordinary voters and limiting access for candidates without deep pockets.

What would Proposition 4 – The California Fair Elections Act – do?

Repeal the current ban on public funding of campaigns.
Allow the state and local governments the option to establish programs that provide public funding for campaigns.
Allow each jurisdiction to decide whether and how they will implement it – examples include using matching funds, voucher systems, or fully funded elections.
Limit which funds can be used for campaigns, who can receive the funds, and how the funds can be spent.
Require candidates to meet strict criteria and abide by spending limits to qualify for public funds.
Require candidates to show broad community support before receiving public funds.
Prohibit the use of public funds for legal defense fees, fines, or personal loans.
Prohibit the use of funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.
Prohibit discrimination based on party or against challengers in favor of incumbents.
Triple the maximum fines for illegal foreign campaign contributions.

Myths	Facts
“The Fair Elections Act mandates* public financing of elections.*“	The Fair Elections Act DOES NOT mandate public financing of elections. It gives cities, counties, districts, and the state the OPTION of choosing to fund some portion of the cost. Supporters estimate a program cost of about $1 per resident per year if adopted.
“There is no precedent* for doing this in other states.*“	14 states and Washington, D.C., plus dozens of localities – including 5 California charter cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Long Beach) – already have similar systems in place, and thousands of qualified candidates from different backgrounds have been elected as a result.
“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for politician’s campaigns.“	Prop 4 itself costs next to nothing. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst estimates a few hundred thousand dollars a year statewide for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions for jurisdictions on how to set up programs – less than 0.1% of the state budget. Any program is a local choice with strict spending limits and safeguards.

What are the benefits?

Limits the influence of private “big money” donors and corporate interests in California politics – empowering small donors and allowing them to compete with larger ones.
Ensures a more diversified candidate pool – giving qualified candidates the opportunity to run without “big money” backers.
Limits the influence of incumbency on election results.
Levels the playing field by giving voters more choice in selecting elected officials that represent their interests.
Allows the voices of everyday voters to be heard!

ENDORSED BY:

Public financing of campaigns

(Ballotpedia) As of September 2025, 14 states and Washington, D.C., provided for some method of public campaign financing for state offices. Public financing of campaigns is when the government provides funds to candidates running for political office. Three models of public financing are popular: 1) matching funds, where the “government ‘matches’ certain small-dollar donations earned by a candidate with public funds at a set rate;” 2) vouchers, where the “government distributes ‘vouchers’ representing a small amount of public funds to each eligible resident, who may donate the funds to a participating candidate of their choice;” and 3) grants, where “participating candidates receive lump-sum grants of public funds.