Prop. 4 would let California and its cities fund campaigns with public money, lifting a 1988 ban

Since 1988, California law has barred state and most local candidates from paying for their campaigns with public money. Proposition 4 on the Nov. 3 ballot asks voters to lift that ban.

The measure would not set up any public financing system on its own. It would let the state and local governments, including cities like Pleasanton, create their own programs later if they choose, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

The rules it would set

Proposition 4 lays down broad limits and leaves most of the design to whoever builds a program, the analyst's office says:

• Money meant for education, transportation or public safety could not be used.
• Candidates would have to show broad support in their district and agree to spending limits and other program rules to qualify.
• Public money could not pay legal defense costs, fines or repay a candidate's personal loan to the campaign.

The state's campaign watchdog, the Fair Political Practices Commission, would not be required to run or enforce local programs. Officials could ask it for guidance instead, which the analyst's office expects would cost the state a few hundred thousand dollars a year for added legal staff.

What any future program would cost depends on who creates one and how, the office says, and the cost could be significant for governments that do.

A handful of charter cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Los Angeles and Long Beach, were exempt from the ban and already offer public financing.

Who supports it

The Legislature placed the measure on the ballot, and Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters of California and California Clean Money Campaign back it, according to CalMatters. Supporters say candidates who accept public money usually must cap their spending, and that the money would let people run without wealthy backers.

"We need to change the way we finance election campaigns so candidates can run and win without having to raise big money," Trent Lange, co-chair of the Yes on Prop. 4 campaign, told CalMatters.

Who opposes it

Opponents say taxpayers should not underwrite campaigns, especially for candidates they disagree with, and warn the system could be gamed. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a San Diego Republican, said on the Assembly floor that voters "have been quite clear they don't want taxpayer money being used for politics."

Several newspaper editorial boards have also urged a no vote, arguing the measure leaves enforcement to local governments, many of which lack their own ethics watchdog.

Voters turned down a 2000 measure that would have allowed public funds for campaign advertising and a 2010 measure to lift the ban. Studies of public financing elsewhere are mixed, CalMatters reported, with some finding more candidates run and others finding little change.

A Public Policy Institute of California poll in September had 42% of likely voters in favor and 53% opposed.

A yes vote lets state and local governments create public financing programs within those limits. A no vote keeps the current ban.

Sources

lao.ca.gov

calmatters.org

calmatters.org