A belief question
Should public money be used to help pay for candidates' election campaigns?
Supporters say public money lets candidates run without relying on large donors. Opponents say taxpayers should not have to pay for campaigns they may not support.
The two sides
- Yes, public money may help pay for campaigns
- No, campaigns should be paid for only with private money
Propositions linked to this belief
California ballot, November 3, 2026
Proposition 4: Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute.The official text says a YES vote moves toward: Yes, public money may help pay for campaigns.
The official guide says a YES vote means: "State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for public office candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be used, how the public funds could be used, and who could receive them."
Past propositions
Proposition 73, 1988 · Passed
Campaign Funding. Contribution Limits. Prohibition of Public Funding. Initiative Statute.
Limited yearly contributions to candidates, limited gifts and honoraria to elected officials, banned newsletters and mass mailings at public expense, and barred public officials and candidates from using or accepting public funds to seek elective office.
The official text said a YES vote moved toward: No, campaigns should be paid for only with private money.
The official summary says Proposition 73 "Prohibits public officials using and candidates accepting public funds for purpose of seeking elective office."
California Ballot Pamphlet, Primary Election, June 7, 1988: Proposition 73, Official Title and Summary (UC Law SF California Ballot Propositions database)