California is the only state with a ban on public financing for electoral campaigns, although certain charter cities are exempt for local elections.

Proposition 4, one of the 14 propositions that will appear on the ballot for the November midterm elections, would lift this ban if passed.

The proposition would allow state and local governments to establish programs that fund campaigns using taxpayer dollars. The proposition itself would not establish a statewide program.

Two opinion columnists advocate for and against this proposition in the Daily Bruin’s newest edition of “A Difference of Opinion Columnists.”

In Favor of Proposition 4 – Ivy Kim, Opinion columnist

Proposition 4 is a pathway to more diverse candidates and fairer campaigns.

California is currently the only state that bans public funding to finance campaigns. Proposition 4 would allow the practice beyond the charter cities of Berkeley, San Francisco, Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland.

Campaign spending has become a hot topic, especially after Tom Steyer, a 2025 billionaire primary candidate for California governor, reported spending $213 million of his own money on his campaign. Although Steyer’s spending is higher than standard, millions of dollars going into campaigns in California is a common occurrence.

Advertisement spending is on track to reach more than $11.6 billion across the country for the November election. It would beat the previous record of $10.7 billion set by the 2024 presidential cycle, according to Bloomberg Law. Running campaigns is expensive because it is never a solitary task – it includes people skilled in marketing, political consultants, canvassers and other specialists.

However, these large figures can deter potential candidates from running for office. Not everyone is a billionaire who can fund their campaign.

Public funding efforts in other states are successful. In New York City, public funding allowed women city council candidates in 2021 to run successful campaigns, improving their representation on the council from 27% to 68%, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Proposition 4’s enforcement mechanisms are admittedly lackluster – they lack a concrete implementation plan. But based on the success of public funding in other states, this bill is still necessary to break down the significant barriers to running for office in California.

Public funding for campaigns could lead to more everyday people running for office without needing to be independently wealthy or pander to billionaires for support. That gives Proposition 4 the potential to elect state and local legislators who reflect the state’s diversity.

Proposition 4 isn’t just another checkbox on the ballot. It’s a step toward widening access to political power.

Opposing Proposition 4 – Antonia Pinnar, Opinion columnist

Proposition 4 may be well-intentioned, but it lacks a clear plan for implementation. Uncertainty surrounding its efficacy makes it too dangerous for California voters to approve.

Although voters may agree with the intent of Proposition 4, they must also consider what the initiative is missing.

This ballot measure fails to provide complete information about funding sources, candidate qualifications, matching and grant systems and spending limits. The proposition only quantifies candidate qualifications as broad-based support in their district. Without this information, important questions about how much money will be redirected to candidates – and how it will be divided among them – remain unanswered.

It also leaves details to the discretion of local governments without proper state oversight. Proposition 4 explicitly says the California Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering how local systems handle the public funding of candidates. That uncertainty can lead to issues with oversight and effectiveness.

Good intentions alone are not enough of a reason to vote yes on Proposition 4. Voters should have a say in how the proposition will be implemented – and the current ballot language doesn’t grant them that right.

Proposition 4 would redirect taxpayer money toward political campaigns without any specific cap, raising questions about government spending. The proposition says it would protect money going toward education, transportation and public safety, yet it does not safeguard other general fund priorities such as health care and housing.

It also fails to address the root of the problem: the influence of money in politics. Allowing public financing doesn’t eliminate private donations from influencing outcomes.

Proponents argue that public financing has the potential to improve representation. However, candidates who exclusively use public funding tend to be less representative of their constituents’ preferences and more ideologically extreme, according to a 2022 study published in the American Journal of Political Science.

Voting against Proposition 4 doesn’t mean one disagrees with its goals. It can instead mean its implementation plan is too flimsy to be sure of its purported benefits.