Volver a la boleta

Propuesta 4: Financiamiento público de campañas electorales

Deroga la prohibición del financiamiento público de las campañas electorales

Ley de la Legislatura. Una ley estatal que la Legislatura puso en la boleta.

En palabras sencillas

La Propuesta 4 elimina la prohibición en California de usar dinero público para las campañas de los candidatos. Permite que el estado y los gobiernos locales creen programas de financiamiento más adelante. En cualquier programa futuro, no se podría usar el dinero destinado a educación, transporte o seguridad pública. Los candidatos solo podrían recibir fondos si demuestran un apoyo amplio en su distrito y aceptan límites de gastos. Los fondos no podrían pagar honorarios legales ni multas, ni reembolsar los préstamos que el candidato hizo a su propia campaña. También triplica la multa máxima por contribuciones extranjeras a campañas. Los programas futuros podrían costar una cantidad significativa a los gobiernos que los creen, según su diseño. Por separado, el estado gastaría unos cientos de miles de dólares al año para que la Comisión de Prácticas Políticas Justas de California (FPPC) pueda responder preguntas sobre ellos.

UN VOTO POR SÍ SIGNIFICA

Un voto por SÍ en esta medida significa: Los gobiernos estatales y locales podrían crear programas de financiación pública de campañas para los candidatos a cargos públicos, siempre que se establezcan límites sobre qué fondos públicos se pueden utilizar, cómo se pueden utilizar y quiénes pueden recibirlos.

UN VOTO POR NO SIGNIFICA

Un voto por NO en esta medida significa: El estado y la mayoría de los gobiernos locales seguirían sin poder crear programas de financiación pública de campañas para los candidatos a cargos públicos.

Texto oficial en español de la Guía Oficial de Información para el Votante de California.

Fuente: guía oficial para el votante

Rótulo oficial de la boleta

Las palabras exactas de su boleta. Toque para leer.
REPEALS PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs.
Fuente: Registro de Votantes del Condado de Los Ángeles, medidas en la boleta

Texto oficial en inglés. Lea la guía oficial para el votante en español.

Argumentos oficiales

Escritos por quienes apoyan y quienes se oponen, e impresos palabra por palabra en la guía oficial estatal para el votante. Los argumentos impresos en esta página son las opiniones de sus autores y ninguna agencia oficial ha verificado su exactitud.

Texto oficial en inglés. Lea la guía oficial para el votante en español (PDF).

Argumento a favor

De quienes apoyanFirmado por Lorrel Plimier, Catherine Kennedy, and Tom Umberg. Toque para leer.

YES ON PROPOSITION 4, THE CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT: ELECTIONS SHOULD BE WON, NOT BOUGHT

The amount of money in California elections is outrageous; it's distorting our democracy. Since 2020, more than $1 billion has been spent on California state candidate races alone. This massive spending gives special interests greater access and influence while drowning out the voices of ordinary Californians.

PROP. 4 HELPS QUALIFIED CANDIDATES COMPETE

Running for office today often requires either personal wealth or access to wealthy donors. Deep pockets have become an unofficial requirement to run for office, leaving too many qualified candidates behind.

PROP. 4 CHANGES THE WAY WE FINANCE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

Programs like small-dollar donation matching help candidates compete without relying on wealthy donors. However, most California communities are banned from using these tools, allowing the influence of big money to grow.

Proposition 4 lifts that ban, giving voters and local governments the option to adopt public financing with strict safeguards so qualified candidates - regardless of their income - can compete against candidates who are backed by wealthy interests.

PROP. 4 BUILDS ON A PROVEN MODEL

We know this reform works because it's working in other states. Thousands of candidates from different backgrounds have been elected in fourteen states and 26 localities using similar systems. They are new people with good ideas from all walks of life. Because they don't rely on wealthy donors, they can speak their mind and work for the people, not the special interests.

PROP. 4 GIVES LOCAL COMMUNITIES A CHOICE

Proposition 4 does not create a public financing program. It simply gives local governments the option to adopt one if they choose.

If a community does, the cost is as little as $1 per resident each year - a small investment to help counter the billions spent influencing California's elections.

PROP. 4 PROTECTS TAXPAYERS

Taxpayer Safeguards:

  • Requires candidates to meet strict eligibility criteria and abide by spending limits to qualify for public funds.
  • Prohibits public funding from favoring incumbents or discriminating based on political party.
  • Prohibits the use of public funds for legal defense or fines.

PROP. 4 CRACKS DOWN ON ILLEGAL FOREIGN MONEY

Proposition 4 triples the maximum fines for illegal foreign campaign contributions and expenditures, strengthening penalties for those who attempt to interfere in California's elections.

PROP. 4 IS SUPPORTED BY LEADERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA

Proposition 4 is backed by a broad coalition including League of Women Voters of California, California Nurses Association, Mental Health Advocacy Services, Social Security Works, California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, California National Organization for Women, Californians for Disability Rights, Consumer Watchdog, Courage California, Democracy for America, Indivisible California: Statestrong, La Defensa, Money Out Voters In, Voters Right to Know, and many others.

PROP. 4 GIVES CALIFORNIANS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECLAIM THEIR ELECTIONS and ensure they reflect the values of the people, not just the wealthiest donors.

YES ON 4 - Restore power to voters, not wealthy donors

Lorrel Plimier, Co-President
League of Women Voters of California
Catherine Kennedy, President
California Nurses Association
Tom Umberg, California State Senator

Respuesta al argumento a favor

De quienes se oponenFirmado por Robert Gutierrez, Jon Coupal, and Dan Schnur. Toque para leer.

Here is what the politicians supporting Proposition 4 do not tell you:

Proposition 4 REPEALS the voter-approved law that PROHIBITS candidates from using taxpayer money to run for office.

Proposition 4 has NO LIMIT on the number of candidates who can get taxpayer money. In the election last June, more than 60 candidates ran for Governor. Proposition 4 would allow thousands of candidates to get taxpayer money!

Proposition 4 has NO LIMIT on how much taxpayer money a candidate can get. Proposition 4 opens the door to taxpayer-funded campaigns but provides no limits on how much taxpayer money a candidate can get and NO LIMIT on spending. It will lead to more negative ads, more junk mail, and more annoying text messages.

Proposition 4 does NOT PROHIBIT SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY in campaigns. Proposition 4 ALLOWS candidates to get taxpayer money AND to get special interest money! Where exactly is the money going to come from to fund thousands of political campaigns? Proposition 4 does not say. But you know the answer. It is coming from YOU, the taxpayers! Less money for schools, less money for public safety, less money for healthcare. More money for politicians.

Proposition 4 is a BLANK CHECK. It is based on false promises and failed solutions.

Proposition 4 does NOT protect taxpayers. That is why Proposition 4 is opposed by California's leading taxpayer organizations.

Proposition 4 does NOT provide for "fair elections." That is why Proposition 4 is opposed by former Commissioners of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Vote NO ON PROPOSITION 4.

Robert Gutierrez, President
California Taxpayers Association
Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Dan Schnur, Former Chair
Fair Political Practices Commission

Argumento en contra

De quienes se oponenFirmado por Dan Schnur, Colleen McAndrews, and Julian Canete. Toque para leer.

Why did Sacramento politicians put Proposition 4 on the ballot? They want access to YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY to fund THEIR OWN CAMPAIGNS.

Proposition 4 repeals a voter approved law that PROHIBITS these politicians from using public taxpayer funds for their own campaigns. That's right, Proposition 4 allows politicians to use your taxpayer money to fund their campaigns.

Proposition 4 has NO LIMIT on the number of candidates who can get taxpayer money and NO LIMIT on how much money they can get! Proposition 4 is a BLANK CHECK. There isn't even a limit on how much they can spend on their campaigns! More negative ads. More junk mail. More annoying text messages. More, more, more.

Proposition 4 is so poorly written, it could allow every state or local "candidate" to get public funding. They don't even have to actually qualify for the ballot to get taxpayer money. Proposition 4 allows for public funding of thousands of state and local candidates. It even allows for public financing of candidates for county political party committees.

In just the last primary election, there were more than 60 candidates for Governor. Do you want YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY going to support more of their negative campaign ads and junk mail?

Proposition 4 has NO LIMIT on how much taxpayer money a candidate can receive. It says it requires "strict criteria" to receive taxpayer funds but provides NO DETAILS on what the criteria are! Read the fine print:

"'Strict criteria' means the requirement set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds."

But there is no current statute, ordinance or charter setting any criteria. Guess who will be setting the criteria? The same politicians who want to get your taxpayer money!

Some good government groups support public financing of campaigns because they want to get special interest money out of politics. BUT PROPOSITION 4 DOES NOT GET RID OF SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY! Under Proposition 4, candidates can raise money from special interests AND get public funding too.

Proposition 4 is the worst kind of public financing scheme. It provides no specifics. It leaves all the details to be worked out by the same politicians who want to get access to public funds.

It is a blank check. But worse than that, Proposition 4 allows special-interest funding of political campaigns.

Please join California's leading taxpayer protection organizations, including the California Taxpayers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California, United Latinos Action, as well as former members of California's Fair Political Practices Commission, who all oppose Proposition 4.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE POLITICIANS' BLANK CHECK PROPOSITION. VOTE NO ON PROP. 4.

Dan Schnur, Former Chair
Fair Political Practices Commission
Colleen McAndrews, Former Commissioner
Fair Political Practices Commission
Julian Canete, President
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce

Respuesta al argumento en contra

De quienes apoyanFirmado por Carmen Balber, Camerina Davidson, and Darius Kemp. Toque para leer.

DON'T BE MISLED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS WHO WANT TO KEEP BUYING ELECTIONS

California is the ONLY state that bans public funding of campaigns. Communities in all 49 other states have the right to adopt public financing to allow qualified candidates to compete against wealthy donors. California doesn't. Prop. 4 simply removes that ban and gives local voters the same choice everyone else has, while instituting strict taxpayer safeguards.

PROP. 4 GIVES POWER BACK TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND EMPOWERS VOTERS, NOT DONORS

Prop. 4 doesn't spend a single taxpayer dollar or institute public financing anywhere. It simply removes the ban to give every city, county, and the state the right to adopt public funding if local voters want it. The details are appropriately left to each community. But any system MUST require candidates to abide by spending limits and demonstrate broad-based support in their district to qualify.

PROP. 4 MAKES ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE TO VOTERS, NOT DONORS

Corporate special interests oppose Prop. 4 because public financing allows candidates to run and win without relying on them - threatening their grip on California elections.

Thousands of candidates from different backgrounds have been elected across the country using public financing, for a tiny cost. Because they don't rely on wealthy donors, they can speak their minds and work for the people, not special interests.

DON'T BE FOOLED BY CORPORATE SPECIAL INTERESTS HIDING BEHIND NICE-SOUNDING NAMES.

VOTE YES ON 4 to let local voters and communities reclaim their elections so they're won, not bought.

Carmen Balber, Executive Director
Consumer Watchdog
Camerina Davidson, President
California National Organization for Women
Darius Kemp, Executive Director
California Common Cause

Fuente: Secretario de Estado de California, argumentos y refutaciones, al 15 de oct. de 2026

Qué posición tienen los grupos

Todos los grupos de nuestra lista, por categoría. Cada posición enlaza a la guía publicada por el propio grupo.

Definiciones de las etiquetas Las citas son las propias palabras de cada grupo, copiadas exactamente.

Partidos políticos

10 grupos

Los partidos estatales y del condado son grupos separados y pueden tener posiciones distintas.

Medios de noticias

5 grupos

Estos son los únicos medios de noticias que encontramos con respaldos publicados para esta elección. Sugiera otro.

Sindicatos

9 grupos

Organizaciones empresariales

3 grupos

Grupos cívicos y de buen gobierno

1 grupo
  • League of Women Voters of California

    Sí

    Sus palabras: "Prop 4 gives every California community the freedom to build elections where voters have more power and wealthy donors and special interests have less."

    La guía de la League muestra su posición como una imagen. La cita viene de su explicación escrita.

    League of Women Voters of California Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026

Grupos de causas y defensa

3 grupos

Sobre el resumen

Resumen redactado con IA a partir del análisis oficial y comparado con él mediante revisión automática. Lea el análisis oficial

Volver al resumen

Enviar una sugerencia

Sugiera un grupo para agregar, una medida que nos falta o una corrección. Leemos todas.

¿Qué sugiere?