Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

This bill would remove prohibitions imposed on a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds, as defined, for the purpose of seeking elective office unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. The bill would require candidates to abide by specified expenditure limits and meet strict criteria, as defined, to qualify for public funds. The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees or fines or to repay personal loans to their campaign. The bill would permit a statute, ordinance, or charter to establish standards to increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency.

Existing law prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, from making a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. Under existing law, a person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended.

This bill would instead require that a person guilty of that misdemeanor, in addition to other penalties, be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding a maximum amount of 3 times the amount contributed or expended.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill, as specified, to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 85320 of the Government Code proposed by AB 953 to be operative pursuant to specified conditions.

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

This bill would remove prohibitions imposed on a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds, as defined, for the purpose of seeking elective office unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. The bill would require candidates to abide by specified expenditure limits and meet strict criteria, as defined, to qualify for public funds. The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees or fines or to repay personal loans to their campaign. The bill would permit a statute, ordinance, or charter to establish standards to increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency.

Existing law prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, from making a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. Under existing law, a person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended.

This bill would instead require that a person guilty of that misdemeanor, in addition to other penalties, be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding a maximum amount of 3 times the amount contributed or expended.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill, as specified, to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 85320 of the Government Code proposed by AB 953 to be operative pursuant to specified conditions.

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

This bill would permit remove prohibitions imposed on a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds, as defined, for the purpose of seeking elective office unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. The bill would require candidates to abide by specified expenditure limits and meet strict criteria, as defined, to qualify for public funds. The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees or fines or to repay personal loans to their campaign. The bill would permit a statute, ordinance, or charter to establish standards to increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency, except as specified. agency.

Existing law prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, from making a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. Under existing law, a person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended.

This bill would specify that a person who violates the prohibition above is instead require that a person guilty of a misdemeanor and would require that the person that misdemeanor, in addition to other penalties, be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding a maximum amount of 3 times the amount contributed or expended.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill bill, as specified, to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, as specified. election. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 85320 of the Government Code proposed by AB 953 to be operative pursuant to specified conditions.

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds, as defined, for the purpose of seeking elective office unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. The bill would require candidates to abide by specified expenditure limits and meet strict criteria, as defined, to qualify for public funds. The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees or fines or to repay personal loans to their campaign. The bill would permit a statute, ordinance, or charter to establish standards to increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency. agency, except as specified.

Existing law prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, from making a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. Under existing law, a person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended.

This bill would specify that a person who violates the prohibition above is guilty of a misdemeanor and would require that the person be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding a maximum amount of 3 times the amount contributed or expended.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, as specified.

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds, as defined, for the purpose of seeking elective office unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. The bill would require candidates to abide by specified expenditure limits and meet strict criteria, as defined, to qualify for public funds. The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees or fines or to repay personal loans to their campaign. The bill would permit a statute, ordinance, or charter to establish standards to increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency.

Existing law prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, from making a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. Under existing law, a person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended.

This bill would specify that a person who violates the prohibition above is guilty of a misdemeanor and would require that the person be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding a maximum amount of 3 times the amount contributed or expended.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, as specified.

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds, as defined, for the purpose of seeking elective office unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. The bill would require candidates to abide by specified expenditure limits and meet strict criteria, as defined, to qualify for public funds. The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees or fines or to repay personal loans to their campaign. The bill would permit a statute, ordinance, or charter to establish standards to increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency.

Existing law prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, from making a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. Under existing law, a person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended.

This bill would specify that a person who violates the prohibition above is guilty of a misdemeanor and would require that the person be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding a maximum amount of 3 times the amount contributed or expended.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, as specified.

Under existing law, a claimant for disabled veterans benefits is not ineligible for a disabled veterans benefit for lack of certification of the disability of the veteran if there is a currently pending application to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for certification of disability for that veteran and the subsequently received certification qualifies the veteran for the benefit.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that provision.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

Bill No: SB 42

Author: Umberg (D), Allen (D) and Cervantes (D), et al.

Amended: 10/2/25

Vote: 21

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/1/25

AYES: Cervantes, Allen, Limón, Umberg

NOES: Choi

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10, 6/2/25

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 59-20, 9/12/25 – See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing: California Fair Elections Act of 2026

SOURCE: California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause

League of Women Voters of California

DIGEST:

This bill puts before the voters a system for public funding of state and local election campaigns in California.

Assembly Amendments

specify that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) shall not enforce the bill’s provisions; declare methods for amending the bill’s provisions after it is enacted; and resolve chaptering conflicts with AB 953 (Pacheco).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, via the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA), spending public moneys for campaign purposes.
2. Prohibits, via the PRA, foreign entities from making campaign contributions and campaigns from soliciting or accepting foreign contributions.
3. Allows two processes for amending the PRA, either by a majority vote of the people or by legislation passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, provided the amendments further the purposes of the PRA.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations, including that:
2. The costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which in turn can give those donors disproportionate influence over governmental decisions and thus undermine public trust.
3. The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents.
4. Defines “public funds” for campaigns as “moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office.”
5. Prohibits a public official or other candidate for office from expending public funds that a state or local entity has earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety for seeking elective office.
6. Requires candidates in order to qualify for public funds to abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria set by statute, ordinance, or charter to demonstrate broad-based support through a large number of small dollar contributions or a similar proxy.
7. Prohibits using public funds for legal defense fees or fines or to repay a personal loan made by a candidate to the campaign, including after a campaign’s conclusion.
8. Prescribes that after enactment the legislature could, by statute, amend this bill’s definitions, processes for increasing candidate expenditure limits, and FPPC enforcement responsibilities, but only a vote of the people could amend all other provisions of this bill.
9. Specifies that the FPPC shall not enforce a local agency’s system of public funding of candidates.
10. Increases the fines, by up to three times, for violating the ban on foreign entities making campaign contributions.
11. Makes its provisions severable in the event any portion of this bill is successfully challenged in court.
12. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to submit the provisions of this bill to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026 statewide general election.

Background

Proposition 9, which appeared on the June 1974 ballot, created the PRA and established California’s campaign finance and disclosure laws for state and local campaigns, candidates, officeholders, and ballot measures.

In 1988, Proposition 73 amended the PRA in several ways, including prohibiting the use of public moneys for campaign purposes. Federal courts found much of Proposition 73 unconstitutional, but the prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes was one provision that did survive and remains in force today.

Several attempts over the past few decades have been made to allow public funding of campaigns in California. Most recently, SB 1107 (Allen, Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016) permitted a public officer or candidate to spend or accept public moneys to seek elective office, if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. The courts invalidated SB 1107 by ruling that the voters, not the Legislature, would need to make this change to the PRA.

While none of the statewide efforts to establish public campaign financing have succeeded, charter cities can have public funding of campaigns for city offices, and five charter cities do. These five are Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. Currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities, do not have the option to set up public funds for campaign financing, despite the policy’s popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies. In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the Legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. The courts, however, ruled that the question must be put before the voters. This bill will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns. If passed, this measure will be placed on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval.
2. Other states. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 14 states provide some form of public financing of campaigns. Several states, including Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine, have systems similar to the one contemplated by this bill. In those states candidates must collect small contributions from a specified number of individuals to demonstrate sufficient support to warrant public campaign funding. The state then provides the candidate campaign funding equal to the expenditure limit set for that election. For example, in Arizona, a candidate for the state legislature must raise $5 contributions from at least 200 individuals to qualify for public funding in an amount equal to the expenditure limit.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 270 (Lee) of 2023-24 was nearly identical to this bill. After passing the Assembly, the bill was held under submission in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

SB 24 (Umberg) of 2023-24 was similar to this bill in that it provided for a system of public financing of campaigns to be submitted to the voters at a statewide general election. The bill passed the Senate, but was ultimately held under submission in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1107 (Allen, Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016) permitted a public officer or candidate to spend or accept public moneys to seek elective office, if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. Court decisions invalidated the chaptered provisions of this bill.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. One-time costs of approximately $1.1 million to the SOS for printing and mailing expenses associated with placing the measure on the ballot at the next statewide general election (General Fund (GF)). The SOS estimates this bill will require approximately nine pages be added to the November 3, 2026, General Election Voter Information Guide at an average cost of approximately $123,000 per page. Actual costs for this bill will depend on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal for publication in the Voter Information Guide.
2. This bill requires the redirection of public funds, except those earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, for public campaign financing, which is, in itself, a significant fiscal effect resulting in GF cost pressures.
3. Costs of approximately $205,000 in the first year and $198,000 annually thereafter to the FPPC for one additional attorney position to accommodate an increase in advice requests related to the implementation of public financing programs and how such programs would impact existing campaign finance reporting and rules (GF).

The FPPC also anticipates additional enforcement costs of an unknown amount. Although this bill provides that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a local public financing program, it is possible that a local agency itself may be subject to FPPC enforcement for improperly administering its local program. In such instances, especially if the FPPC needed to audit the jurisdiction’s financial records, enforcement costs may be significant.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/25)

California Clean Money Campaign (co-source)

California Common Cause (co-source)

League of Women Voters of California (co-source)

ACLU California Action
Asian Law Caucus
Bay Rising Action
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Black Power Network
California Council of Churches Impact
California Democratic Council

California Democratic Party
California Donor Table
California Environmental Voters

California Federation of Labor Unions – AFL CIO
California Working Families Party
Californians for Disability Rights
Catalyst California

CleanEarth4Kids.org
Consumer Watchdog
Courage California
Culver City Democratic Club
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
End Citizens United
Endangered Habitats League
Engage San Diego
Fair Rep LA
Hmong Innovating Politics
Indivisible CA: StateStrong
Indivisible California Green Team
Inland Empire United
LA Defensa
Los Angeles for Democracy Vouchers
Money Out Voters in

Move to Amend – Santa Clara County
Oakland Rising
Represent.Us
South Bay Progressive Alliance
Starting Over Strong
Unrig LA
Voters Right to Know
Wellbeing Economy Alliance California
Working Partnerships USA

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/25)

California Taxpayers Association

One individual

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

Supporters cite polling data showing that voters are increasingly concerned about money in politics and note that public financing of campaigns can address the concerns of voters. They assert that public financing as conceived of in this bill increases the power of small donors and ordinary voters, as well as reducing the barriers to running for office.

Supporters further note that Proposition 73, passed in 1988 and largely invalidated by the courts, is the barrier to allowing jurisdictions, other than charter cities, to set up public financing systems. They observe that this bill does not create public financing nor require any government to offer it. They support this bill so that every jurisdiction in the state receives the same opportunity that charter cities have to make the choice to have public financing of campaigns.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

Opponents raise concerns that this bill will force taxpayers to finance political speech they do not wish to support and that under its provisions governments may be able to arbitrarily prohibit certain candidates from receiving funding. Opponents further note that public financing can lead to abuse and corruption when candidates fraudulently seek financing. Finally, opponents argue that the state has ongoing structural deficits and many local governments face budget pressures due to inflation. Governments should, therefore, prioritize prudent fiscal policies and make the most of the tax dollars they receive.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR, 9/12/25:

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Valencia, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: Alanis, Castillo, Chen, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Ramos

Prepared by: Carrie Cornwell / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

7/21/26 10:32:22

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 42

Author: Umberg (D), Allen (D) and Cervantes (D), et al.

Amended: 9/3/25 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/1/25

AYES: Cervantes, Allen, Limón, Umberg

NOES: Choi

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10, 6/2/25

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-18, 9/12/25 – Roll call is not available

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing: California Fair Elections Act of 2026

SOURCE: California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause

League of Women Voters of California

DIGEST:

This bill puts before the voters a system for public funding of state and local election campaigns in California.

Assembly Amendments

specify that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) shall not enforce the bill’s provisions; declare methods for amending the bill’s provisions after it is enacted; and resolve chaptering conflicts with AB 953 (Pacheco).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, via the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA), spending public moneys for campaign purposes.
2. Prohibits, via the PRA, foreign entities from making campaign contributions and campaigns from soliciting or accepting foreign contributions.
3. Allows two processes for amending the PRA, either by a majority vote of the people or by legislation passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, provided the amendments further the purposes of the PRA.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations, including that:
2. The costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which in turn can give those donors disproportionate influence over governmental decisions and thus undermine public trust.
3. The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents.
4. Defines “public funds” for campaigns as “moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office.”
5. Prohibits a public official or other candidate for office from expending public funds that a state or local entity has earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety for seeking elective office.
6. Requires candidates in order to qualify for public funds to abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria set by statute, ordinance, or charter to demonstrate broad-based support through a large number of small dollar contributions or a similar proxy.
7. Prohibits using public funds for legal defense fees or fines or to repay a personal loan made by a candidate to the campaign, including after a campaign’s conclusion.
8. Prescribes that after enactment the legislature could, by statute, amend this bill’s definitions, processes for increasing candidate expenditure limits, and FPPC enforcement responsibilities, but only a vote of the people could amend all other provisions of this bill.
9. Specifies that the FPPC shall not enforce a local agency’s system of public funding of candidates.
10. Increases the fines, by up to three times, for violating the ban on foreign entities making campaign contributions.
11. Makes its provisions severable in the event any portion of this bill is successfully challenged in court.
12. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to submit the provisions of this bill to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026 statewide general election.

Background

Proposition 9, which appeared on the June 1974 ballot, created the PRA and established California’s campaign finance and disclosure laws for state and local campaigns, candidates, officeholders, and ballot measures.

In 1988, Proposition 73 amended the PRA in several ways, including prohibiting the use of public moneys for campaign purposes. Federal courts found much of Proposition 73 unconstitutional, but the prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes was one provision that did survive and remains in force today.

Several attempts over the past few decades have been made to allow public funding of campaigns in California. Most recently, SB 1107 (Allen, Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016) permitted a public officer or candidate to spend or accept public moneys to seek elective office, if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. The courts invalidated SB 1107 by ruling that the voters, not the Legislature, would need to make this change to the PRA.

While none of the statewide efforts to establish public campaign financing have succeeded, charter cities can have public funding of campaigns for city offices, and five charter cities do. These five are Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. Currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities, do not have the option to set up public funds for campaign financing, despite the policy’s popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies. In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the Legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. The courts, however, ruled that the question must be put before the voters. This bill will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns. If passed, this measure will be placed on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval.
2. Other states. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 14 states provide some form of public financing of campaigns. Several states, including Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine, have systems similar to the one contemplated by this bill. In those states candidates must collect small contributions from a specified number of individuals to demonstrate sufficient support to warrant public campaign funding. The state then provides the candidate campaign funding equal to the expenditure limit set for that election. For example, in Arizona, a candidate for the state legislature must raise $5 contributions from at least 200 individuals to qualify for public funding in an amount equal to the expenditure limit.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 270 (Lee) of 2023-24 was nearly identical to this bill. After passing the Assembly, the bill was held under submission in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

SB 24 (Umberg) of 2023-24 was similar to this bill in that it provided for a system of public financing of campaigns to be submitted to the voters at a statewide general election. The bill passed the Senate, but was ultimately held under submission in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1107 (Allen, Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016) permitted a public officer or candidate to spend or accept public moneys to seek elective office, if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. Court decisions invalidated the chaptered provisions of this bill.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. One-time costs of approximately $1.1 million to the SOS for printing and mailing expenses associated with placing the measure on the ballot at the next statewide general election (General Fund (GF)). The SOS estimates this bill will require approximately nine pages be added to the November 3, 2026, General Election Voter Information Guide at an average cost of approximately $123,000 per page. Actual costs for this bill will depend on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal for publication in the Voter Information Guide.
2. This bill requires the redirection of public funds, except those earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, for public campaign financing, which is, in itself, a significant fiscal effect resulting in GF cost pressures.
3. Costs of approximately $205,000 in the first year and $198,000 annually thereafter to the FPPC for one additional attorney position to accommodate an increase in advice requests related to the implementation of public financing programs and how such programs would impact existing campaign finance reporting and rules (GF).

The FPPC also anticipates additional enforcement costs of an unknown amount. Although this bill provides that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a local public financing program, it is possible that a local agency itself may be subject to FPPC enforcement for improperly administering its local program. In such instances, especially if the FPPC needed to audit the jurisdiction’s financial records, enforcement costs may be significant.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/25)

California Clean Money Campaign (co-source)

California Common Cause (co-source)

League of Women Voters of California (co-source)

ACLU California Action
Asian Law Caucus
Bay Rising Action
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Black Power Network
California Council of Churches Impact
California Democratic Council

California Democratic Party
California Donor Table
California Environmental Voters

California Federation of Labor Unions – AFL CIO
California Working Families Party
Californians for Disability Rights
Catalyst California

CleanEarth4Kids.org
Consumer Watchdog
Courage California
Culver City Democratic Club
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
End Citizens United
Endangered Habitats League
Engage San Diego
Fair Rep LA
Hmong Innovating Politics
Indivisible CA: StateStrong
Indivisible California Green Team
Inland Empire United
LA Defensa
Los Angeles for Democracy Vouchers
Money Out Voters in

Move to Amend – Santa Clara County
Oakland Rising
Represent.Us
South Bay Progressive Alliance
Starting Over Strong
Unrig LA
Voters Right to Know
Wellbeing Economy Alliance California
Working Partnerships USA

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/25)

California Taxpayers Association

One individual

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

Supporters cite polling data showing that voters are increasingly concerned about money in politics and note that public financing of campaigns can address the concerns of voters. They assert that public financing as conceived of in this bill increases the power of small donors and ordinary voters, as well as reducing the barriers to running for office.

Supporters further note that Proposition 73, passed in 1988 and largely invalidated by the courts, is the barrier to allowing jurisdictions, other than charter cities, to set up public financing systems. They observe that this bill does not create public financing nor require any government to offer it. They support this bill so that every jurisdiction in the state receives the same opportunity that charter cities have to make the choice to have public financing of campaigns.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

Opponents raise concerns that this bill will force taxpayers to finance political speech they do not wish to support and that under its provisions governments may be able to arbitrarily prohibit certain candidates from receiving funding. Opponents further note that public financing can lead to abuse and corruption when candidates fraudulently seek financing. Finally, opponents argue that the state has ongoing structural deficits and many local governments face budget pressures due to inflation. Governments should, therefore, prioritize prudent fiscal policies and make the most of the tax dollars they receive.

Prepared by: Carrie Cornwell / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

9/12/25 21:21:15

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 42

Author:(Umberg, et al.)

As Amended Ver:September 3, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Allows the state and local governments to offer public campaign financing programs. Triples the maximum potential fine for criminal violations of the ban on campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign entities. Makes this bill operative only upon voter approval in November 2026.

Major Provisions

1. Permits a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds for the purpose of seeking elective office if the following conditions are met:
   1. The public funds are not earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.
   2. Public funding programs do not discriminate based on party, or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent.
   3. Candidates receiving public funds abide by expenditure limits and meet criteria that demonstrate broad-based support in the district in which they are running, as specified. Such criteria may include a requirement to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents.
   4. Public funds are not used for legal defense fees or fines or to repay a personal loan from the candidate to their campaign, and a candidate who receives public funds does not use any source of funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign after the campaign ends.
2. Permits a public financing program adopted in accordance with this bill to increase the expenditure limits for participating candidates, provided that any increased limit does not exceed a specified amount that takes into account spending by other candidates for the same office and independent expenditures (IEs) related to candidates for the same office.
3. Provides that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is not responsible for administering or enforcing a local agency's system of public financing of candidates.
4. Increases the potential fine for a criminal violation of the state's ban on campaign contributions or expenditures by specified foreign entities from an amount equal to the amount contributed or expended, to an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended and up to three times that amount.
5. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to submit this bill's provisions to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.

COMMENTS

In June 1974, California voters passed an initiative—Proposition 9—that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the Political Reform Act (PRA).

In 1988, voters approved two separate initiatives that sought to regulate campaign financing by amending the PRA: Proposition 68 and Proposition 73. Proposition 68 proposed a system of public funding and expenditure limits for state legislative races, and passed with 53% of the vote. Proposition 73 prohibited public funding of campaigns and set contribution limits for state and local elections, and passed with 58% of the vote. The California Supreme Court subsequently ruled in Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. FPPC (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 744, that because the two measures contained conflicting comprehensive regulatory schemes they could not be merged and only one could be implemented. As such, since Proposition 73 received more affirmative votes than Proposition 68, the Court ordered the implementation of Proposition 73 and declared all provisions of Proposition 68 invalid.

In an effort to authorize public campaign financing programs subject to certain conditions, in 2016, the Legislature approved and Governor Brown signed SB 1107 (Allen), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016. SB 1107 did not create any public financing programs, but instead authorized the creation of such programs by state or local governmental entities through separate actions by those entities. Because SB 1107 sought to amend a provision of Proposition 73, which itself amended and became part of the PRA, the provisions of SB 1107 were subject to rules governing legislation that seeks to amend the PRA. SB 1107 contained legislative findings and declarations that the bill furthered the purposes of the PRA, and was enacted in a manner that complied with various procedural requirements for bills that seek to amend the PRA without the approval of voters.

Following the enactment of SB 1107, the Third District Court of Appeal determined in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Newsom (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 158 that SB 1107 "directly conflicts with a primary purpose and mandate of the [PRA], as amended by subsequent voter initiatives, to prohibit public funding of political campaigns." In its decision, the court affirmed a judgment by the Sacramento County Superior Court that enjoined the FPPC from enforcing the public financing related provisions of SB 1107.

This bill proposes to repeal the provisions of SB 1107 that sought to authorize public campaign financing programs, and proposes to authorize state and local governments to offer public campaign financing programs, subject to certain conditions. Unlike SB 1107, this bill provides that it would become effective only upon approval of the voters.

California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the PRA. Amendments to the PRA by the Legislature must further the purposes of the proposition and require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, or the Legislature may propose amendments to the proposition that do not further the purposes of the act by a majority vote, but such amendments must be approved by the voters to take effect. This bill would take effect only if approved by the voters.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

According to the Author

"Currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities, do not have the option to set up [a] public fund for campaign financing, despite the policy's popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies. In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. However, the courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters. SB [42] will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns. If passed, this measure will be placed on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval."

Arguments in Support

In a coalition letter, supporters of this bill write, "Voters are increasingly concerned about the problem of money in politics…Public financing of campaigns addresses these concerns by increasing the power of small donors and ordinary voters to participate in campaigns and have their voices heard. Also, it reduces the barriers to entry for running for office which diversifies the candidate pool by helping qualified candidates from all walks of life represent their communities…Unfortunately, such programs are prohibited in California jurisdictions other than charter cities by the Political Reform Act of 1974 under a provision enacted by Proposition 73 in 1988 that had virtually all of its other provisions invalidated by the courts…SB 42 will allow voters to…restore control to local governments and the state by placing the California Fair Elections Act on the November 2026 ballot to repeal the ban while requiring that no public moneys earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety be eligible to fund public financing."

Arguments in Opposition

In opposition to this bill, the California Taxpayers Association writes, "This measure raises several First Amendment issues by creating a scenario in which taxpayers would be forced to finance political speech they do not wish to support. SB 42 sets vague parameters for the authority that governments would have to determine which candidates qualify for public financing. It is possible that governments would be able to arbitrarily prohibit certain candidates from receiving funding to limit the speech of some candidates for the political benefit of others… SB 42 establishes a taxpayer-financed campaign system similar to a New York City program that has been abused by public officials to funnel tax dollars into their campaigns…While SB 42 establishes penalties for public officials who fraudulently receive public campaign funds, the bill would create a new threat of campaign violations, and it lacks a central oversight body to ensure that fraud and abuse are not occurring. The state is dipping into rainy day reserves and is projected to continue having structural deficits, and many municipalities are experiencing significant budget pressure due to inflation. The government should prioritize prudent fiscal policies to make the most of the tax dollars received from hardworking Californians."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time costs of approximately $1.1 million to the SOS for printing and mailing expenses associated with placing the measure on the ballot at the next statewide general election (General Fund (GF)). The SOS estimates this bill will require approximately nine pages be added to the November 3, 2026, General Election Voter Information Guide at an average cost of approximately $123,000 per page. Actual costs for this bill will depend on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal for publication in the Voter Information Guide.
2. This bill may result in the redirection of public funds, except those earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, for public campaign financing, which is, in itself, a significant fiscal effect resulting in GF cost pressures.
3. Costs of approximately $205,000 in the first year and $198,000 annually thereafter to the FPPC for one additional attorney position to accommodate an increase in advice requests related to the implementation of public financing programs and how such programs would impact existing campaign finance reporting and rules (GF).
4. The FPPC also anticipates additional enforcement costs of an unknown amount. Although this bill provides that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a local public financing program, it is possible that a local agency itself may be subject to FPPC enforcement for improperly administering its local program. In such instances, especially if the FPPC needed to audit the jurisdiction's financial records, enforcement costs may be significant.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10-2

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hurtado, Reyes

ASM ELECTIONS: 5-2-0

YES: Pellerin, Bennett, Berman, Solache, Stefani

NO: Macedo, Tangipa

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Ahrens, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: September 3, 2025

CONSULTANT: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0001557

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 42

Author:(Umberg, et al.)

As Amended Ver:June 25, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Allows the state and local governments to offer public campaign financing programs. Triples the maximum potential fine for criminal violations of the ban on campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign entities. Makes this bill operative only upon voter approval in November 2026.

Major Provisions

1. Permits a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds for the purpose of seeking elective office if the following conditions are met:
   1. The public funds are not earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.
   2. Public funding programs do not discriminate based on party, or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent.
   3. Candidates receiving public funds abide by expenditure limits and meet criteria that demonstrate broad-based support in the district in which they are running, as specified. Such criteria may include a requirement to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents.
   4. Public funds are not used for legal defense fees or fines or to repay a personal loan from the candidate to their campaign, and a candidate who receives public funds does not use any source of funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign after the campaign ends.
2. Permits a public financing program adopted in accordance with this bill to increase the expenditure limits for participating candidates, provided that any increased limit does not exceed a specified amount that takes into account spending by other candidates for the same office and independent expenditures (IEs) related to candidates for the same office.
3. Provides that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is not responsible for administering or enforcing a local agency's system of public financing of candidates, unless the FPPC agrees to do so.
4. Increases the potential fine for a criminal violation of the state's ban on campaign contributions or expenditures by specified foreign entities from an amount equal to the amount contributed or expended, to an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended and up to three times that amount.
5. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to submit this bill's provisions to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.

COMMENTS

In June 1974, California voters passed an initiative—Proposition 9—that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the Political Reform Act (PRA).

In 1988, voters approved two separate initiatives that sought to regulate campaign financing by amending the PRA: Proposition 68 and Proposition 73. Proposition 68 proposed a system of public funding and expenditure limits for state legislative races, and passed with 53% of the vote. Proposition 73 prohibited public funding of campaigns and set contribution limits for state and local elections, and passed with 58% of the vote. The California Supreme Court subsequently ruled in Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. FPPC (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 744, that because the two measures contained conflicting comprehensive regulatory schemes they could not be merged and only one could be implemented. As such, since Proposition 73 received more affirmative votes than Proposition 68, the Court ordered the implementation of Proposition 73 and declared all provisions of Proposition 68 invalid.

In an effort to authorize public campaign financing programs subject to certain conditions, in 2016, the Legislature approved and Governor Brown signed SB 1107 (Allen), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016. SB 1107 did not create any public financing programs, but instead authorized the creation of such programs by state or local governmental entities through separate actions by those entities. Because SB 1107 sought to amend a provision of Proposition 73, which itself amended and became part of the PRA, the provisions of SB 1107 were subject to rules governing legislation that seeks to amend the PRA. SB 1107 contained legislative findings and declarations that the bill furthered the purposes of the PRA, and was enacted in a manner that complied with various procedural requirements for bills that seek to amend the PRA without the approval of voters.

Following the enactment of SB 1107, the Third District Court of Appeal determined in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Newsom (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 158 that SB 1107 "directly conflicts with a primary purpose and mandate of the [PRA], as amended by subsequent voter initiatives, to prohibit public funding of political campaigns." In its decision, the court affirmed a judgment by the Sacramento County Superior Court that enjoined the FPPC from enforcing the public financing related provisions of SB 1107.

This bill proposes to repeal the provisions of SB 1107 that sought to authorize public campaign financing programs, and proposes to authorize state and local governments to offer public campaign financing programs, subject to certain conditions. Unlike SB 1107, this bill provides that it would become effective only upon approval of the voters.

California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the PRA. Amendments to the PRA by the Legislature must further the purposes of the proposition and require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, or the Legislature may propose amendments to the proposition that do not further the purposes of the act by a majority vote, but such amendments must be approved by the voters to take effect. This bill would take effect only if approved by the voters.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

According to the Author

"Currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities, do not have the option to set up [a] public fund for campaign financing, despite the policy's popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies. In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. However, the courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters. SB [42] will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns. If passed, this measure will be placed on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval."

Arguments in Support

In a coalition letter, supporters of this bill write, "Voters are increasingly concerned about the problem of money in politics…Public financing of campaigns addresses these concerns by increasing the power of small donors and ordinary voters to participate in campaigns and have their voices heard. Also, it reduces the barriers to entry for running for office which diversifies the candidate pool by helping qualified candidates from all walks of life represent their communities…Unfortunately, such programs are prohibited in California jurisdictions other than charter cities by the Political Reform Act of 1974 under a provision enacted by Proposition 73 in 1988 that had virtually all of its other provisions invalidated by the courts…SB 42 will allow voters to…restore control to local governments and the state by placing the California Fair Elections Act on the November 2026 ballot to repeal the ban while requiring that no public moneys earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety be eligible to fund public financing."

Arguments in Opposition

In opposition to this bill, the California Taxpayers Association writes, "This measure raises several First Amendment issues by creating a scenario in which taxpayers would be forced to finance political speech they do not wish to support. SB 42 sets vague parameters for the authority that governments would have to determine which candidates qualify for public financing. It is possible that governments would be able to arbitrarily prohibit certain candidates from receiving funding to limit the speech of some candidates for the political benefit of others… SB 42 establishes a taxpayer-financed campaign system similar to a New York City program that has been abused by public officials to funnel tax dollars into their campaigns…While SB 42 establishes penalties for public officials who fraudulently receive public campaign funds, the bill would create a new threat of campaign violations, and it lacks a central oversight body to ensure that fraud and abuse are not occurring. The state is dipping into rainy day reserves and is projected to continue having structural deficits, and many municipalities are experiencing significant budget pressure due to inflation. The government should prioritize prudent fiscal policies to make the most of the tax dollars received from hardworking Californians."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time costs of approximately $1.1 million to the SOS for printing and mailing expenses associated with placing the measure on the ballot at the next statewide general election (General Fund (GF)). The SOS estimates this bill will require approximately nine pages be added to the November 3, 2026, General Election Voter Information Guide at an average cost of approximately $123,000 per page. Actual costs for this bill will depend on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal for publication in the Voter Information Guide.
2. This bill requires the redirection of public funds, except those earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, for public campaign financing, which is, in itself, a significant fiscal effect resulting in GF cost pressures.
3. Costs of approximately $205,000 in the first year and $198,000 annually thereafter to the FPPC for one additional attorney position to accommodate an increase in advice requests related to the implementation of public financing programs and how such programs would impact existing campaign finance reporting and rules (GF).
4. The FPPC also anticipates additional enforcement costs of an unknown amount. Although this bill provides that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a local public financing program, it is possible that a local agency itself may be subject to FPPC enforcement for improperly administering its local program. In such instances, especially if the FPPC needed to audit the jurisdiction's financial records, enforcement costs may be significant.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10-2

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hurtado, Reyes

ASM ELECTIONS: 5-2-0

YES: Pellerin, Bennett, Berman, Solache, Stefani

NO: Macedo, Tangipa

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Ahrens, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: June 25, 2025

CONSULTANT: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0001303

Date of Hearing: July 16, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 42

Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:June 25, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill, if approved by the voters, allows the state or a local government entity to offer public campaign financing programs.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Revises the general prohibition against a public officer or candidate expending or accepting public funds for the purpose of seeking office, to instead prohibit the expenditure or acceptance of public money if such funds are earmarked by the state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety.
2. Sets rules for a public financing program, including requiring a candidate to abide by voluntary spending limits and meet strict criteria set by statute, ordinance, or charter to qualify for public funds. The criteria must require a candidate to demonstrate broad-based support in the candidate’s district, such as by requiring a candidate to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a certain number of voting-age residents.
3. Provides that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a local public financing program, unless the FPPC enters into a written agreement with the local entity to do so.
4. Increases the amount of the fine that may be imposed on a person who violates the state’s ban on campaign contributions or expenditures by specified foreign entities.
5. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to submit this bill’s provisions to voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time costs of approximately $1.1 million to the SOS for printing and mailing expenses associated with placing the measure on the ballot at the next statewide general election (General Fund (GF)). The SOS estimates this bill will require approximately nine pages be added to the November 3, 2026, General Election Voter Information Guide at an average cost of approximately $123,000 per page. Actual costs for this bill will depend on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal for publication in the Voter Information Guide.
2. This bill requires the redirection of public funds, except those earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, for public campaign financing, which is, in itself, a significant fiscal effect resulting in GF cost pressures.
3. Costs of approximately $205,000 in the first year and $198,000 annually thereafter to the FPPC for one additional attorney position to accommodate an increase in advice requests related to the implementation of public financing programs and how such programs would impact existing campaign finance reporting and rules (GF).

The FPPC also anticipates additional enforcement costs of an unknown amount. Although this bill provides that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a local public financing program, it is possible that a local agency itself may be subject to FPPC enforcement for improperly administering its local program. In such instances, especially if the FPPC needed to audit the jurisdiction’s financial records, enforcement costs may be significant.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities, do not have the option to set up [a] public fund for campaign financing, despite the policy’s popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years…In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. However, the courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters. SB [42] will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing campaigns. If passed, this measure will be placed on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval.

1. Background. Many Attempts at Public Financing. Because of the public funding ban contained in Proposition 73 (1988), the state and most local governments in California may not offer public financing programs for electoral campaigns. While the California Supreme Court ruled that the public financing ban does not apply to charter cities, a state appellate court has held that the public financing ban does apply to charter counties. As a result, while charter cities in California may enact public campaign financing programs, and at least six charter cities (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento, and San Francisco) have enacted such programs, general law cities, all counties, all districts, and the state government are covered by the current ban.

SB 1107 (Allen), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016, authorized the creation of public financing programs by the state or local government entities. Because SB 1107 sought to amend a provision of Proposition 73, which amended and thus became part of the Political Reform Act (PRA), SB 1107 was subject to rules governing legislation seeking to amend the PRA – notably, findings and declarations the bill furthered the purposes of the PRA and approval by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. However, former-Senator Quentin Kopp (a proponent of Proposition 73) and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association successfully challenged SB 1107 in court, alleging the measure did not further the purposes of the PRA, and therefore could not be enacted without voter approval. This bill repeals the invalidated provisions of SB 1107 and authorizes the state or a local government to offer public campaign financing programs, subject to certain rules and voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.

Foreign Influence in Elections. Existing law prohibits foreign governments and foreign principals from making a direct or indirect contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with a state or local candidate or ballot measure. A violation of this ban is enforceable under the processes generally available for a violation of the PRA, and also as a misdemeanor charge with a fine in the amount equal to the amount contributed or expended. This bill increases the maximum potential fine amount for such a violation to equal three times the amount contributed or expended.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is sponsored by the California Clean Money Campaign, co-sponsored by California Common Cause and League of Women Voters of California, and supported by a large coalition of community and civil rights groups, which collectively argue public financing of campaigns increases “the power of small donors and ordinary voters to participate in campaigns and have their voices heard” and “reduces the barriers to entry for running for office which diversifies the candidate pool by helping qualified candidates from all walks of life represent their communities.”

This bill is opposed by the California Taxpayers Association, which argues this bill “raises several First Amendment issues by creating a scenario in which taxpayers would be forced to finance political speech they do not wish to support” and “government should prioritize prudent fiscal policies to make the most of the tax dollars received from hardworking Californians.”

1. Related Legislation. AB 953 (Pacheco) extends the ban on campaign contributions or expenditures by specified foreign entities to a “foreign national,” as defined. AB 953 is pending on the Senate Consent Calendar.
2. Prior Legislation. AB 270 (Lee) and SB 24 (Umberg), both of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, were substantially similar to this bill. AB 270 and SB 24 were held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s and Assembly Appropriations Committee’s suspense file, respectively.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 42

Author: Umberg (D), Allen (D) and Cervantes (D), et al.

Amended: 5/23/25

Vote: 21

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/1/25

AYES: Cervantes, Allen, Limón, Umberg

NOES: Choi

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing: California Fair Elections Act of 2026

SOURCE: California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause

League of Women Voters of California

DIGEST:

This bill puts before the voters a system for public funding of state and local election campaigns in California.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, via the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA), spending public moneys for campaign purposes.
2. Prohibits, via the PRA, foreign entities from making campaign contributions and campaigns from soliciting or accepting foreign contributions.
3. Allows two processes for amending the PRA, either by a majority vote of the people or by legislation passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, provided the amendments further the purposes of the PRA.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations, including that:
2. The costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which in turn can give those donors disproportionate influence over governmental decisions and thus undermine public trust.
3. The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents.
4. Defines “public funds” for campaigns as “moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office.”
5. Prohibits a public official or other candidate for office from expending public funds that a state or local entity has earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety for seeking elective office.
6. Requires candidates in order to qualify for public funds to abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria showing broad-based support through a large number of small dollar contributions or a similar proxy.
7. Prohibits using public funds for legal defense fees or fines or to repay a personal loan made by a candidate to the campaign, including after a campaign’s conclusion.
8. Provides that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is not responsible for administering or enforcing a local agency’s system of public financing of candidates.
9. Increases the fines, by up to three times, for violating the ban on foreign entities making campaign contributions.
10. Makes its provisions severable in the event any portion of the bill is successfully challenged in court.
11. Requires the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of this bill to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026 statewide general election.

Background

Proposition 9, which appeared on the June 1974 ballot, created the PRA and established California’s campaign finance and disclosure laws for state and local campaigns, candidates, officeholders, and ballot measures.

In 1988, Proposition 73 amended the PRA in several ways, including prohibiting the use of public moneys for campaign purposes. Federal courts found much of Proposition 73 unconstitutional, but the prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes was one provision that did survive and remains in force today.

Several attempts over the past few decades have been made to allow public financing of campaigns in California. Most recently, SB 1107 (Allen, Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016) permitted a public officer or candidate to spend or accept public moneys to seek elective office, if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. The courts invalidated SB 1107 by ruling that the voters would need to make this change to the PRA.

While none of the statewide efforts to establish public financing have succeeded, charter cities can have public financing of campaigns for city offices, and five charter cities do. These five are Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. Currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities, do not have the option to set up public fund for campaign financing, despite the policy’s popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies. In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107, which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. The courts, however, ruled that the question must be put before the voters. This bill will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns. If passed, this measure will be placed on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval.
2. Other states. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 14 states provide some form of public financing of campaigns. Several states, including Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine, have systems similar to the one contemplated by this bill. In those states candidates must collect small contributions from a specified number of individuals to demonstrate sufficient support to warrant public campaign funding. The state then provides the candidate campaign funding equal to the expenditure limit set for that election. For example, in Arizona, a candidate for the state legislature must raise $5 contributions from at least 200 individuals to qualify for public financing in an amount equal to the expenditure limit.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 270 (Lee) of 2023-24 was nearly identical to this bill. After passing the Assembly, the bill was held under submission in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

SB 24 (Umberg) of 2023-24 was similar to this bill in that it provided for a system of public financing of campaigns to be submitted to the voters at a statewide general election. The bill passed the Senate, but was ultimately held under submission in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1107 (Allen, Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016) permitted a public officer or candidate to spend or accept public moneys to seek elective office, if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. Court decisions invalidated the chaptered provisions of this bill.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

• This bill would result in one-time 2026-27 General Fund costs to the Secretary of State, in the range of $738,000 to $984,000, for printing and mailing costs to place a measure on the ballot in a statewide election. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on the length of required elements and the overall size of the ballot.
• The FPPC indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $205,000, and $198,000 annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill (General Fund). FPPC would require one attorney position to accommodate additional workload resulting from the bill. FPPC further notes that it could incur additional enforcement costs as a result of the bill. The amount is unknown, but potentially significant (General Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

California Clean Money Campaign (co-source)

California Common Cause (co-source)

League of Women Voters of California (co-source)

Supervisor Vincente Sarmiento, Orange County Board of Supervisors

350 Marin Action

ACLU California Action
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
Asian Law Caucus
Bay Rising Action
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Black Power Network
California Council of Churches Impact
California Democratic Council
California Donor Table
California Environmental Voters

California Federation of Labor Unions – AFL CIO

California Nurses Association / National Nurses United
California Working Families Party
Californians for Disability Rights
Catalyst California

Cloverdale Democratic Club
Consumer Watchdog
Courage California
Culver City Democratic Club
Delores Huerta Foundation

Democracy Action Marin
Democrats of Rossmoor
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
End Citizens United
Endangered Habitats League
Engage San Diego
Fair Rep LA

Green Party of Los Angeles County
Hmong Innovating Politics
Indivisible CA: StateStrong
Indivisible California Green Team
Indivisible Green Team

Indivisible Marin

Indivisible Novato

Indivisible Sausalito

Indivisible Sonoma County

Indivisible West Marin
Inland Empire United
LA Defensa
Los Angeles County Democratic Party
Los Angeles for Democracy Vouchers
Money Out Voters in
Oakland Rising

Oakmont Progressives
Represent.Us
Santa Monica Democratic Club

Solitary Sundays Marin
South Bay Progressive Alliance
Starting Over Strong
Unrig LA
Voters Right to Know
Wellbeing Economy Alliance California
Working Partnerships USA

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

California Taxpayers Association
One individual

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

Supporters cite polling data showing that voters are increasingly concerned about money in politics and note that public financing of campaigns can address the concerns of voters. They assert that public financing as conceived of in this bill increases the power of small donors and ordinary voters, as well as reducing the barriers to running for office.

Supporters further note that Proposition 73, passed in 1988 and largely invalidated by the courts, is the barrier to allowing jurisdictions, other than charter cities, to set up public financing systems. They observe that this bill does not create public financing nor require any government to offer it. They support this bill so that every jurisdiction in the state receives the same opportunity that charter cities have to make the choice to have public financing of campaigns.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

Opponents raise concerns that this bill will force taxpayers to finance political speech they do not wish to support and that under its provisions governments may be able to arbitrarily prohibit certain candidates from receiving funding. Opponents further note that public financing can lead to abuse and corruption when candidates fraudulently seek financing. Finally, opponents argue that the state has ongoing structural deficits and many local governments face budget pressures due to inflation. Governments should, therefore, prioritize prudent fiscal policies and make the most of the tax dollars they receive.

Prepared by: Carrie Cornwell / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

5/27/25 11:45:11

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 42 (Umberg) - Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing: California Fair Elections Act of 2026

Bill Summary:

SB 42 would place before the voters a system for public funding of state and local election campaigns in California.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 23, 2025

Fiscal Impact:

• This bill would result in one-time 2026-27 General Fund costs to the Secretary of State (SOS), in the range of $738,000 to $984,000, for printing and mailing costs to place a measure on the ballot in a statewide election. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on the length of required elements and the overall size of the ballot.
• The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $205,000, and $198,000 annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill (General Fund). FPPC would require one attorney position to accommodate additional workload resulting from the bill. FPPC further notes that it could incur additional enforcement costs as a result of the bill. The amount is unknown, but potentially significant (General Fund).

Author Amendments:

Add coauthors.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 42 (Umberg) - Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing: California Fair Elections Act of 2026

Bill Summary:

SB 42 would place before the voters a system for public funding of state and local election campaigns in California.

Fiscal Impact:

• This bill would result in one-time 2026-27 General Fund costs to the Secretary of State (SOS), in the range of $738,000 to $984,000, for printing and mailing costs to place a measure on the ballot in a statewide election. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on the length of required elements and the overall size of the ballot.
• The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $205,000, and $198,000 annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill (General Fund). FPPC would require one attorney position to accommodate additional workload resulting from the bill. FPPC further notes that it could incur additional enforcement costs as a result of the bill. The amount is unknown, but potentially significant (General Fund).

Background:

In 1974, California voters passed Proposition 9 (the Political Reform Act, or PRA) which created FPPC, and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders, and lobbyists. The Legislature is permitted to amend the PRA, but the amendments must further the purposes of the Act and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. The PRA also permits amendments by submitting them to voters for approval.

In 2016, the Legislature passed SB 1107 (Allen). Among its provisions, the bill permitted a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. However, courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters, because Proposition 73 (1988) placed into the PRA the prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes.

Under current law, a foreign government or foreign principal is prohibited from making a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with a state or local ballot measure or the election of a candidate to state or local office. A person or a committee is also prohibited from soliciting or accepting a contribution from a foreign government or foreign principal in connection with any state or local ballot measure or the election of a candidate to state or local office.

Proposed Law:

This bill would, among other things, do the following:

• Define "public funds" for campaigns as "moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office."
• Prohibit a public official or other candidate for office from expending public funds that a state or local entity has earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety for seeking elective office.
• Require candidates in order to qualify for public funds to abide by expenditure limits and meet specified criteria showing broad-based support through a large number of small dollar contributions or a similar proxy.
• Prohibit using public funds for legal defense fees or fines or to repay a personal loan made by a candidate to the campaign, including after a campaign's conclusion.
• Provide that FPPC is not responsible for administering or enforcing a local agency's system of public financing of candidates.
• Increase the fines, by up to three times, for violating the ban on foreign entities making campaign contributions.
• Make its provisions severable in the event any portion of the bill is successfully challenged in court.
• Require SOS to submit the provisions of this bill to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026 statewide general election.

Related Legislation:

• AB 270 (Lee, 2024) was nearly identical to this bill, and was held under submission on the Suspense File of this Committee.
• SB 24 (Umberg. 2024) was similar to this bill in that it provided for a system of public financing of campaigns to be submitted to the voters at a statewide general election. The bill was held under submission on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
• SB 1107 (Allen, Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016) permitted a public officer or candidate to spend or accept public moneys to seek elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. Courts ruled such a question must be put before the voters.

Staff Comments:

The Office of the Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill “non-fiscal.” However, the purview of this Committee, pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5, is to review and analyze bills that would, among other things, result in a substantial expenditure of state money. Thus, even though the bill was keyed “non-fiscal,” the Committee requested the bill to examine the extent to which it might potentially increase costs to the State.

SOS indicates that printing and mailing costs associated with placing a measure on the statewide ballot are approximately $123,000 per page, depending on the length of the ballot. The fiscal estimates noted above reflect the addition of 6-8 pages in the Voter Information Guide. Actual costs would depend upon the length of the title and summary, analysis by the LAO, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal.

As noted previously, FPPC would require one attorney position as a result of the bill. Cost drivers include an increase in advice requests related to the application of the legislation and how the public financing would be reported and interact with existing campaign reporting rules. Additionally, FPPC could incur additional costs for enforcement against local jurisdictions. The magnitude is unknown, but could be significant if, for example, FPPC needed to audit the financial records of a jurisdiction. Though the bill provides that FPPC does not administer or enforce any public financing system established by a local governmental agency, it is possible that there could be a circumstance where a local agency itself could be subject to enforcement under the PRA for improperly running its public financing system.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB Hearing Date: 4/1/25

Subject: Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing: California Fair Elections Act of 2026

DIGEST

This bill puts before the voters a system for public funding of state and local election campaigns in California.

ANALYSIS

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA):

1. Prohibits spending public moneys for campaign purposes.
2. Prohibits foreign entities from making campaign contributions and campaigns from soliciting or accepting foreign contributions.
3. Allows two processes for amending the PRA, either by a majority vote of the people or by legislation passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, provided the amendments further the purposes of the PRA.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations, including that:
2. The costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which in turn can give those donors disproportionate influence over governmental decisions and thus undermine public trust.
3. The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents.
4. Defines “public funds” for campaigns as “moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office.”
5. Prohibits a public official or other candidate for office from expending public funds that a state or local entity has earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety for seeking elective office.
6. Requires candidates in order to qualify for public funds to abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria showing broad-based support through a large number of small dollar contributions or a similar proxy.
7. Prohibits using public funds for legal defense fees or fines or to repay a personal loan made by a candidate to the campaign, including after a campaign’s conclusion.
8. Provides that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is not responsible for administering or enforcing a local agency’s system of public financing of candidates.
9. Increases the fines, by up to three times, for violating the ban on foreign entities making campaign contributions.
10. Makes its provisions severable in the event any portion of the bill is successfully challenged in court.
11. Requires the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of this bill to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026 statewide general election.

BACKGROUND

Proposition 9, which appeared on the June 1974 ballot, created the PRA and established California’s campaign finance and disclosure laws for state and local campaigns, candidates, officeholders, and ballot measures.

In 1988, Proposition 73 amended the PRA in several ways, including prohibiting the use of public moneys for campaign purposes. Federal courts found much of Proposition 73 unconstitutional, but the prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes was one provision that did survive and remains in force today.

Several attempts over the past few decades have been made to allow public financing of campaigns in California. Most recently, SB 1107 (Allen), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016, permitted a public officer or candidate to spend or accept public moneys to seek elective office, if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. The courts invalidated SB 1107 by ruling that the voters would need to make this change to the PRA.

While none of the statewide efforts to establish public financing have succeeded, charter cities can have public financing of campaigns for city offices, and five charter cities do. These five are Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s statement. Currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities, do not have the option to set up public fund for campaign financing, despite the policy’s popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies. In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. The courts, however, ruled that the question must be put before the voters. This bill will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns. If passed, this measure will be placed on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval.
2. Other states. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 14 states provide some form of public financing of campaigns. Several states, including Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine, have systems similar to the one contemplated by this bill. In those states candidates must collect small contributions from a specified number of individuals to demonstrate sufficient support to warrant public campaign funding. The state then provides the candidate campaign funding equal to the expenditure limit set for that election. For example, in Arizona, a candidate for the state legislature must raise $5 contributions from at least 200 individuals to qualify for public financing in an amount equal to the expenditure limit.
3. Arguments in support. Supporters cite polling data showing that voters are increasingly concerned about money in politics and note that public financing of campaigns can address the concerns of voters. They assert that public financing as conceived of in this bill increases the power of small donors and ordinary voters, as well as reducing the barriers to running for office.

Supporters further note that Proposition 73, passed in 1988 and largely invalidated by the courts, is the barrier to allowing jurisdictions, other than charter cities, to set up public financing systems. They observe that this bill does not create public financing nor require any government to offer it. They support this bill so that every jurisdiction in the state receives the same opportunity that charter cities have to make the choice to have public financing of campaigns.

1. Arguments in opposition. Opponents raise concerns that this bill will force taxpayers to finance political speech they do not wish to support and that under its provisions governments may be able to arbitrarily prohibit certain candidates from receiving funding. Opponents further note that public financing can lead to abuse and corruption when candidates fraudulently seek financing. Finally, opponents argue that the state has ongoing structural deficits and many local governments face budget pressures due to inflation. Governments should, therefore, prioritize prudent fiscal policies and make the most of the tax dollars they receive.
2. Technical amendments. Delete “recent” where it appears in findings and declarations referring to studies released in 2014 and 2016.
3. Double referral. Should this bill pass this committee, it will next be heard in the Committee on Appropriations.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

AB 270 (Lee) of 2023-24 was nearly identical to this bill. After passing the Assembly, the bill was held under submission in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

SB 24 (Umberg) of 2023-24 was similar to this bill in that it provided for a system of public financing of campaigns to be submitted to the voters at a statewide general election. The bill passed the Senate, but was ultimately held under submission in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1107 (Allen), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016, permitted a public officer or candidate to spend or accept public moneys to seek elective office, if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. Court decisions invalidated the chaptered provisions of this bill.

POSITIONS

Sponsor: California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause (co-sponsor)

League of Women Voters of California (co-sponsor)

Support: Supervisor Vincente Sarmiento, Orange County Board of Supervisors

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO

Asian Law Center

Bay Rising Action

California Councils of Churches IMPACT

California Democratic Council

California Donor Table

California Environmental Voters

Californians for Disability Rights

Consumer Watchdog

Courage California

Culver City Democratic Club

Democrats of Rossmoor

Dolores Huerta Foundation

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

End Citizens United

Endangered Habitats League

Engage San Diego

Fair Rep LA

Hmong Innovating Politics

Indivisible CA: StateStrong

Indivisible Green Team

Inland Empire United

La Defensa

Los Angeles County Democratic Party

Los Angeles for Democracy Vouchers

Money Out Voters In (MOVI)

Oakland Rising

Represnet.US

Santa Monica Democratic Club

South Bay Progressive Alliance

Starting Over Strong

Unrig LA

Voters Right to Know

Working Partnerships USA

One individual

Oppose: California Taxpayers Association

One individual

-- END --