The Question

Should California remove the current prohibition on public financing of campaigns to allow any city, county, district, as well as the state itself the opportunity to pass public funding systems as long as the systems meet specific requirements?

The Situation

Currently state law prohibits the state, counties, districts, and general law cities from providing public financing for campaigns as enacted by the 1988 passage of Proposition 73, the “Funds for Election Campaigns Initiative.” 

Charter cities are, however, allowed to do so. Five California charter cities currently employ different public financing models for their local office races as ways to amplify the voices of regular people. In other parts of the United States approximately 14 states and 26 localities allow public financing of campaigns.

Johnson v. Bradley (1992) explicitly permitted charter cities to use public money for campaign finance.

A previous legislative attempt in 2016 to remove the public financing ban (SB 1107 by Senator Allen) was struck down by the courts because it was ruled that altering this provision of the Political Reform Act of 1974 must be put before the voters via a ballot measure.

The Proposal

If passed, the proposition would repeal the ban on public funding of campaigns, thereby allowing all CA state or local governments to establish programs for the public funding of election campaigns. Public funding programs could not use funds earmarked for education, transportation or public safety and would be limited to specific spending limits and eligibility rules. 

The measure would also significantly increase criminal violation fines for specified foreign entities from an amount equal to the contribution up to three times that amount.

Fiscal Effects

The California Fair Elections Act does not mandate public financing nor does it create a public campaign finance program at either the state or local levels; it simply allows local communities to decide whether they want to adopt it. Any future state public campaign finance system, or costs associated with it, are not known and would depend on future legislative decisions related to the design of such a program.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) would incur estimated costs of a few hundred thousand dollars per year to hire more legal staff to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs. 

Supporters Say

• Prop 4 would amplify the voices of everyday voters and candidatesand offer them a viable alternative to fundraising that relies on wealthy donors and special interests.
• The measure would allow qualified candidates from all walks of life to compete and win. 
• Prop 4 would increase the diversity of campaign contributors.

Opponents Say

• Passage of Prop 4 might compel governments to abandon prudent fiscal policies or take advantage of the tax dollars they receive.
• The measure could force taxpayers to finance political speech they do not wish to support, such as negative political ads.
• Implementation could lead to abuse and corruption if candidates fraudulently seek financing.