Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure

Type: Legislatively-referred state statute
Subject: Election administration;Campaign finance
Election: June 2, 2026 statewide primary

Overview

Allow the state and local governments to create programs that provide candidates with public funds under spending limits and eligibility rules

Measure Design

See also: Text of measure The measure would amend provisions of the Political Reform Act , which were adopted by the approval of Proposition 73 in 1988. Proposition 73 was an initiated state statute. In California, legislative alteration of an initiated state statute requires voter approval. [1] The measure would repeal the prohibition on public officers and candidates from expending or accepting public funds for campaign purposes, thereby allowing the state or local governments to establish programs for the public funding of election campaigns. The measure would require the state and local governments to develop expenditure limits and criteria for candidates to qualify for public funds for election campaigns. It would prohibit the public funds from being used for legal defense fees, fines, or to repay a personal loan to their campaign. [1] The expenditure limits would be established by statute, ordinance, or charter of the governing entity providing public election funds. The law would require the strict criteria set by the state or local governments for candidates to be eligible for public funds to require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district (e.g., a minimum small-dollar contribution requirement or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents). The law would prohibit the strict criteria from requiring candidates to collect a specific number of signatures or raise a specified total dollar amount greater than $10 per contributor. The public funding program would be prohibited from discriminating against a candidate based on party affiliation or whether the candidate is an incumbent or challenger. [1] The measure would authorize the state legislature to amend the provisions of the law related to the public funding of campaigns without voter approval, but require voter approval on all other provisions of the law. [1] The measure would have also made changes to the ban on foreign entities making campaign contributions if Assembly Bill 953 , which enacted identical changes, did not take effect. The measure added foreign national to the list of entities prohibited from making campaign contributions in the state. Foreign national was defined as “a person who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not a lawfully admitted permanent resident” and exempts persons granted deferred action under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program from this definition. AB 953 was unanimously approved and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Oct. 1, 2025. [1] [7]

Text Of Measure

The full text of the ballot measure is below: [1] Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to view the ballot language. Section 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Fair Elections Act of 2026. Sec. 2 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable. (b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive. (c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions. (d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the public’s trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth. (e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016. (f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, are currently operative in five charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions. (g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015, the National Institute on Money in State Politics in 2016, and the State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2022. (h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions. (i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court highlighted the Court of Appeal’s observation that “it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups.” (j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that “public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest.” (k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections “can further ‘significant governmental interest[s]’ such as the state interest in preventing corruption,” quoting Buckley v. Valeo. (l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs “facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.” (m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly. Sec. 3 Section 85300 of the Government Code is amended to read:85300. (a) A public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public funds for the purpose of seeking elective office if the funds are earmarked by any state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. (b) Candidates shall abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify for public funds. (c) Public funds shall not be utilized to pay legal defense fees or fines. (d) (1) A candidate shall not, at any time, use public funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign. (2) A candidate who receives public funds for their campaign shall not, after their campaign ends, use any source of funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign. (e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(1) “Available candidate funds” means the candidate’s expenditure limit or the sum of all contributions and public funds received by the candidate’s controlled committee for the elective office, whichever is less. (2) “Expenditure limits” means voluntary spending limits established by statute, ordinance, or charter that qualified, voluntarily participating candidates must abide by to receive public funds. (3) “Independent expenditures against” means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in opposition to a specific candidate. (4) “Independent expenditures in support” means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in support of a specific candidate. (5) “Net supportive funds” means the sum of available candidate funds, plus the independent expenditures in support of that candidate, minus the independent expenditures against that candidate. (6) “Public funds” means any moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office. (7) (A) “Strict criteria” means the requirements set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds. These criteria shall require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in

Support

Californians for Fair Elections is leading the campaign in support of the measure. [9]

Supporters

Officials State Sen. Ben Allen (D) State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D) State Sen. Tom Umberg (D) Political Parties California Democratic Party California Working Families Party Organizations ACLU of California California Clean Money Action Fund California Common Cause Consumer Watchdog End Citizens United League of Women Voters of California Represent.Us

Arguments

Sean McMorris, Transparency, Ethics, and Accountability Program Manager for Common Cause: “It’s essentially leveling the playing field. It’s also an attempt to diversify the candidate field, which gives voters more choice.” Sen. Ben Allen (D-24): “The California Fair Elections Act is all about trying to improve our Democracy and elections. Public financing programs serve as a tool to lessen the power of big money, expand opportunities for more people to run for office, and allow candidates to focus more on voter appeal instead of donor appeal.”

Opposition

Ballotpedia has not located a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure. You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org .

Opponents

Organizations California Taxpayers Association

Campaign Finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2026 The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed , which covered through December 31, 2025 . The deadline for the next scheduled reports was April 30, 2026. Ballotpedia has not identified any committees registered to support or oppose the ballot measures. [10] Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures Support $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Path To The Ballot

See also: Legislatively referred state statute in California A simple majority vote is required during one legislative session for the California State Legislature to place a legislatively referred state statute on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 41 votes in the California State Assembly and 21 votes in the California State Senate , assuming no vacancies. State statutes do require the governor’s signature.

Sources

• Ballotpedia — measure detail page
• Upstream: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Allow_Public_Financing_of_Election_Campaigns_Measure_(2026)